THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 


GIFT  OF 


Dr.   Gordon  Watkins 


•v^^'^^-ti 


A  * 


C 


Vi"  55- 


THE  AMERICAN  LESSON 


THE  FREE  TRADE  STRUGGLE 


IN  ENGLAND. 


GENERAL  M.  M.  TRUMBULL. 


CHICAGO: 
SCHUMM    AND    SIMPSON, 

Radkai.  Kevikw  (.)FF1CE. 

1  b  8  4 . 


T7S'    ' 


Copyright,  1884, 
By  M.  M.  Trumbtjll. 


DEDICATION. 

TO    THE 

RIGHT  HON.  JOHN  BRIGHT,  M.P., 

THE    ELOQUENT  FRIEND  AND 

DEFENDER   OF  THE  AMERICAN   REPUBLIC, 

THE   ENLIGHTENED   ADVOCATE   OF 

PEACE   AND   FREE   TRADE 

AMONG  NATIONS  ' 

THIS  WORK   IS   RESPECTFULLY  INSCRIBED  BY 

HIS   FRIEND   AND   DISCIPLE. 

M.  M.  TRUMBULL. 


LETTER  FROM  JOHN   BRIGHT. 

132  Piccadilly,  London, 

August  8,   1882. 

Deak  Sib  :  I  onght  to  have  thanked  you  sooner  for 
sending  me  your  useful  and  very  interesting  "  History  of 
the  Free  Trade  Struggle  in  England."  I  hope  it  may  be 
widely  read,  and  be  of  much  use.  But  I  do  not  expect 
.your  people  will  copy  from  us — they  will  learn  from  what 
is  passing  around  them  how  much  they  suffer  from  your 
present  barbarous  tariff. 

There  are  persons  amongst  as,  who  are  not  anxious  for 
a  reform  of  your  tariff.  They  say  you  cannot  have  an 
export  trade,  and  cannot  compete  with  us  in  foreign  mar- 
kets; that  we  have  complete  control  of  markets  where 
is  no  high  tariff;  and  where  duties  are  considerable,  that 
we  can  surmount  them  where  you  cannot,  and  that  we 
have  a  great  advantage  over  you  in  every  market  but 
your  own. 

Again,  in  your  mercantile  marine  your  condition  is  mis- 
erable and  humiliating  owing  to  your  protective  system, 
which  has  driven  your  ships  off  the  ocean.  Surely,  there 
is  intelligence  enough  in  your  country  to  perceive  this, 
and  it  can  only  require  discussion  to  bring  about  a  change, 
which  would  bless  every  honest  industry  amongst  you. 
The  shackles  have  been  struck  from  the  limbs  of  the 
slave,  and  they  cannot  remain  to  fetter  the  freedom  of 
your  industries. 

I  hope  your  movement  will  advance — the  world  expects 
it  from  you.  England  and  America,  with  free  institutions 
and  Free  Trade,  will  lead  the  world  to  something  better 
than  the  past. 

I  am  very  truly  yours, 

John  Beiqht. 
5 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcli  ive.org/details/americanlessonofOOtrumiala 


PREFACE. 

Iw  the  Spring  of  1882  I  published  a  short  History  of 
the  Free  Trade  Struggle  in  England.  That  little  work 
became  popular  beyond  my  expectation,  and  the  edition 
was  soon  exhausted.  The  press  comments  upon  it  were 
very  favorable,  and  a  second  edition  was  called  for.  In 
preparing  another  edition  of  it  I  determined  to  revise  the 
work  altogether,  to  make  it  more  copious  and  more  inter- 
esting, and  especially  to  show  that  the  moral  of  the  contest 
is  as  applicable  to  the  United  States  to-day  as  it  was  to 
England  forty  years  ago.  This  must  necessarily  be  so, 
for  the  law  of  liberty  cannot  vary  with  climate  or  geo- 
graphy. One  of  our  most  popular  statesman,  a  candidate 
for  the  second  office  in  the  republic,  intimates  in  his  letter 
of  acceptance  a  dififerent  opinion.  He  says,  "  the  fact  that 
our  form  of  Government  is  entirely  unique  among  the 
nations  of  the  world,  makes  it  utterly  absurd  to  institute 
comparisons  between  our  own  economic  systems  and  those 
of  other  governments."  This  is  a  very  serious  error.  No 
government  is  "  unique "  enough  to  violate  the  laws  of 
moral  science  with  imj)unity.  No  government  ever  will 
be  so  "unique"  that  it  can  justly  tax  one  man  for  the 
benefit  of  another,  or  forbid  its  citizens  to  buy  their  goods 
in  the  cheapest  market. 

The  arguments  used  by  the  advocates  of  the  American 
Protective  system  in  1884  are  all  borrowed  from  the 
speeches  delivered  in  the  Briti.sh  Parliament  in  1844  by 
the    advocates   of  the  English    Protective    system.    This 


viii.  Pr  face. 

proves  that  the  principle  of  both  systems  is  the  same 
and  that  it  must  be  beneficial  or  injurious  to  one  country 
as  well  as  to  another.  I  am  glad  to  notice  that  Mr.  Bright 
has  recently  expressed  this  view  of  it.  Speaking  of  Mr. 
Blaine's  letter  of  acceptance  he  says  that  it  reminds  him 
of  the  old  theories  long  maintained  in  England  and  finally 
discarded  for  a  system  more  enlightened  and  more  free* 
To  make  this  parallel  more  plain  to  the  American  reader 
is  the  chief  object  of  this  work,  while  presenting  at  the 
same  time  a  iair  and  truthful  history  of  the  Struggle  for 
Free  Trade  in  England.  M.  M.  T. 

Chicago,  Oct.  1884. 


CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  P&OB 

I.  The  Anti-Cobk-Law  League       -       -       -  11 

II.  The  Protection  Triumph    -        -        -        -  27 

III.  A  Tory  Ministry 50 

IV.  The  New  Tariff 63 

V.  The  Horizontal  Plan 77 

VI.  Hard  Times 92 

VII.  American  Wheat  and  the  Drain  of  Gold  108 

VIII.  Over-Production 124 

IX.  WACiES 137 

X.  Recipuocity 155 

XI.  At  the  Zenith 172 

XII.  A  Surplus  Revenue 185 

XIII.  Nearing  the  End 197 

XIV.  At  Last,  Famine 214 

XV.  The  Reformed  System 233 

XVI.  The  Nhw  Policy 251 

XVII  A  Tariff  for  Revenue  Only      ... 


THE  AMERICAN  LESSON  OF  THE  FREE 
TRADE  STRUGGLE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    ANTI-CORN-LAW    LEAGUE. 

Period  of  the  Free  Trade  Struggle — Free  Trade  as  a  Theory 
— Protection  aa  a  Practice  —  Opposition  to  it  in  the 
Early  Part  of  the  Nineteenth  Century — The  Merchanta 
of  London  against  it — Lord  Liverpool's  answer  to  them — 
The  Citizens  of  Boston  against  it — Their  reason — 
Parallels  between  the  English  and  American  Protective 
Theory — Contradictory  character  of  the  English  Pro- 
tective Laws  in  Early  Times — Monopoly  Franchises — 
Failure  of  their  Expectations — The  Competition  of 
Trades  for  Protection — The  Corn-Law  of  1815 — Future 
Opposition  to  it — Ebenezer  Elliott — Organization  of  the 
Anti-Corn-Law  League. 

By  the  Free  Trade  struggle  in  England  is  meant 
the  campaign  from  1838  to  1846,  or  from  the  for- 
mation of  the  Anti-Corn-Law  League,  to  the  final 
overthrow  of  the  Protective  System.  Of  course 
there  were  enlightened  people  before  that  time 
who  doubted  the  wisdom  of  a  restrictive  policy 
which  excluded  foreign  products  by  a  hostile  tariff" 
on  imports;  but  they  were  comparatively  few. 
They  were  easily  brushed  aside  by  those  who  be- 
lieved in  the  blessings  of  scarcity,  and  who  looked 
upon  abundance  as  one  of  the  calamities  of  man- 
kind. The  believers  in  commercial  freedom  were 
told  that  their  doctrines  were  all  very  well  in 
11 


12  HISTORY  OP  FREE  TRADE. 

theory,  but  would  never  do  in  practice,  and  with 
this  convenient  argument  they  had  to  be  content. 
No  doubt  that  in  the  "dark  ages"  of  political 
economy,  when  "  Protection  "  flourished  in  direct 
proportion  to  the  popular  ignorance,  there  were 
men  in  England  who  saw  clear  over  the  fogs  in 
the  valley  the  humanizing  influence  of  Free  Trade 
shining  on  the  heights  beyond;  even  as  Galileo 
and  Columbus  saw  farther  and  clearer  than  the 
men  around  them.  They,  too,  were  told  that  the 
sciences  they  cultivated  were  all  very  well  in 
theory,  but  if  subjected  to  experiment  would  be 
found  quite  unavailable  in  practice. 

Indeed,  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago,  Adam 
Smith  had  refuted  the  argument  on  which  the 
protective  theory  was  based,  and  which  up  to  his 
time  had  been  known  by  a  sort  of  paradox  as  the 
"  Mercantile  System."  Carried  to  its  logical 
results  its  effect  was  to  hinder  mercantile  transac- 
tions, and  to  cripple  commerce,  by  closing  ports 
to  international  trade.  In  the  time  of  Henry- 
Clay  it  was  known  in  this  country  as  the  "  Ameri- 
can System,"  and  in  our  own  day  it  is  called  by 
the  captivating  title  of  "  Protection  to  native  in- 
dustry." Mr.  Huskisson,  one  of  the  most  enlight- 
ened members  of  the  English  ministry,  made 
some  advances  towards  Free  Trade,  as  early  as 
the  year  1825;  and  even  before  that  time,  the 
merchants  of  London  had  petitioned  Parliament 
in  behalf  of  commercial  freedom.  Their  argument 
was  remarkably  forcible  and  clear.    They  said : — 


ANTI-CORN-LAW  LEAGUE.  13 

"  That  unfortunately,  a  practice,  the  very  re- 
verse of  freedom  from  restraint,  has  been,  and  is, 
more  or  less  adopted  and  acted  upon  by  the  gov- 
ernments of  this,  and  almost  every  other  country ; 
each  trying  to  exclude  the  productions  of  other 
countries,  with  the  specioiis  and  well-meant  design 
of  encouraging  its  own  productions, — thus  inflict- 
ing upon  the  bulk  of  its  citizens  who  are  consumers 
the  necessity  of  submitting  to  privations  in  the 
quantity  and  quality  of  commodities;  and  thus 
rendering  what  ought  to  be  the  source  of  mutual 
benefit  and  harmony  among  States,  a  constantly 
recurring  source  of  jealousy  and  hostility.  That 
the  prevailing  prejudices  in  favor  of  the  protective 
or  restrictive  system,  may  be  traced  to  the  erron- 
eous supposition  that  every  importation  of  foreign 
commodities  occasions  a  diminution  or  discourage- 
ment of  our  own  productions  to  the  same  extent ; 
whereas  it  may  be  clearly  shown,  that  although 
the  particular  description  of  production  which 
could  not  stand  against  unrestrained  foreign  com- 
petition would  be  discouraged,  yet,  as  no  importa- 
tion could  be  continued  for  any  length  of  time 
without  a  corresponding  exportation,  direct  or 
indirect,  there  would  be  an  encouragement  for  the 
purpose  of  that  exportation,  to  some  other  pro- 
duction, to  which  our  situation  might  be  better 
suited ;  thus  afibrding  at  least  an  equal,  or  prob- 
ably a  greater,  and  certainly  a  more  beneficial 
employment  to  our  own  capital  and  labor." 


14  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE. 

The  petition  ended  with  an  earnest  protest 
against  "  every  restrictive  regulation  of  trade  not 
essential  to  the  revenue ;  against  all  duties  merely 
protective ;  and  against  the  excess  of  such  duties 
as  are  partly  for  the  purpose  of  revenue,  and 
partly  for  that  of  protection."  In  answer  to  the 
petition,  Lord  Liverpool,  then  Prime  Minister,  said, 
that "  he  agreed  in  every  sentiment  expressed  in  the 
petition ;  and  that  if  he  were  forming  a  Commercial 
Code,  such  would  be  its  fundamental  principles." 
Perhaps  the  most  insidious  enemy  to  every  reform 
is  that  valueless  concession  which  agrees  to  the 
principle  of  it,  and  regrets  that  the  present  "  is 
not  the  time ;"  as  Mr.  Eaton  is  reported  to  have 
said  in  Congress,  when  opposing  Mr.  Morrison's 
bill,  "  He  hoped  that  the  United  States  would  be 
a  Free  Trade  country — forty  years  from  now." 

Some  people  entertain  the  delusion  that 
although  the  laws  of  mathematics  and  the  physi- 
cal sciences  are  applicable  to  all  countries,  yet  that . 
the  same  inflexible  quality  does  not  belong  to  the 
laws  of  moral  science.  They  believe  that  these 
can  be  changed  according  to  the  whim  of  legisla- 
tures, and  the  exigencies  of  climate  and  geography. 
They  think  that  the  principles  of  Free  Trade  may 
be  philosophical  and  wise  in  one  country,  and  the 
reverse  in  another ;  that  "infancy  "  is  a  good  plea 
in  behalf  of  Protection  in  a  new  country,  but  not 
in  an  old  one ;  that  agriculture  ought  to  be  pro- 
tected at  the  expense  of  manufactures  in  Eng- 
land, and  manufactures  protected  at  the  expense 


THE  ANTI-CX)RN-LAW   LEAGUE.  15 

of  agriculture  in  America.  But  the  laws  of 
political  economy  cannot  be  bent  to  suit  latitude 
and  longitude.  The  freedom  of  trade  that  benefits 
England  would  benefit  the  United  States.  Com- 
mercial principles  cannot  vary  between  Liverpool 
and  New  York,  nor  between  Boston  and  Montreal. 
It  is  very  curious  that  while  the  citizens  of 
London  were  petitioning  their  Parliament  for  com- 
mercial freedom,  the  citizens  of  Boston  were 
petitioning  Congress  for  the  same  right.  It  gives 
a  rude  shock  to  the  vanity  of  an  American  revenue 
reformer  of  the  present  day,  to  find  that  his  argu- 
ments were  anticipated  by  his  countrymen  nearly 
sixty  years  ago.  In  1827,  when  our  ''  infant  in- 
dustries" were  much  more  infantile  than  they  are 
now,  a  committee  of  the  citizens  of  Boston  thus 
protested  against  the  injustice  of  a  protective 
tarifi".  They  declared  it  false  to  say,  that  "  dear 
goods  made  at  home,  are  better  than  cheap  ones 
made  abroad;  that  capital  and  labor  cannot  be 
employed  in  this  country  without  protective 
duties ;  that  it  is  patriotic  to  tax  the  many  for 
the  benefit  of  the  few ;  that  it  is  just  to  aid  by 
legislation  manufactures  that  do  not  succeed 
without  it ;  that  we  ought  to  sell  to  other  nations, 
but  never  to  buy  from  them."  They  go  on  to  say 
"these  are,  we  have  long  since  known,  fundamental 
principles  among  the  advocates  of  the  American 
system.  It  is,  however,  extraordinary  that  these 
ancient  and  memorable  maxims,  sprung  from  the 


16  HISTORY   OF  FEEE  TRADE. 

darkest  ages  of  ignorance  and  barbarism,  should 
take  their  last  refuge  here." 

It  is  not  so  very  extraordinary  after  all.  Every 
nation  must  pass  through  commercial  barbarism 
to  commercial  civilization,  from  Protection  to  Free 
Trade.  The  desire  to  get  rich  at  somebody  else's 
expense  is  well  nigh  universal.  It  is  easy  to  per- 
suade most  people  that  to  "protect"  their  own 
artisans  from  the  competition  of  "  foreign  pauper 
labor  "  is  an  act  of  patriotism.  This  admitted,  it 
is  easily  narrowed  down  to  our  own  State,  our 
own  county,  our  own  city,  our  own  village,  or  even 
our  own  street.  In  the  last  century  the  farmers 
of  Middlesex,  the  county  in  which  London  is 
situated,  petitioned  Parliament  against  improving 
the  abominable  roads  of  England.  They  frankly 
claimed  that  so  long  as  the  roads  were  bad  they 
had  a  monopoly  of  the  London  markets  for  the 
sale  of  their  vegetables,  fruit,  and  grain ;  that  if 
the  roads  were  improved,  the  farmers  of  other 
counties  would  be  able  to  bring  their  produce  to 
the  London  markets,  which  would  be  disastrous 
to  the  "  industry "  of  Middlesex.  This  looks 
very  foolish  on  the  face  of  it,  and  yet  it  is  the  doc- 
trine of  American  Protectionists  to-day. 

To  attempt  to  encourage  by  protective  laws, 
agriculture,  manufactures,  shipping,  experimental 
enterprises,  special  trades,  "  infant "  industries, 
and  so  on,  was  persevered  in  by  England  at  a 
wasteful  expense  for  centuries,  and  it  was  only 
abandoned  when  it  was  found  out  that  Protection 


THE   ANTI-CORN-LAW   LEAGUE.  17 

was  the  paralysis  of  industry.  To  suppose  that 
the  United  States  was  born  wise  in  these  matters, 
would  be  as  unreasonable  as  to  think  that  it  could 
be  born  old.  It  must  go  through  the  same  educa- 
tion in  economics  that  England  went  through. 
Its  school  term  will  not  be  so  long  as  that  of  Eng- 
land was,  but  it  must  be  the  same.  The  protective 
doctrine,  too,  has  the  same  advantage  here  that  it 
had  in  England.  So  long  as  it  prevailed  the 
nation  grew  in  wealth,  power,  and  population. 
Not  until  Protection  was  abandoned  did  the 
people  see  that  their  progress  had  been  made  in 
spite  of  it,  and  that  it  would  have  been  much 
greater,  had  commerce  been  free.  So  it  will  be 
here.  Under  "  Protection,"  and  in  spite  of  it,  this 
country  is  growing  in  wealth  and  power.  When 
Protection  is  abandoned  the  people  will  be 
astonished  as  they  were  in  England,  at  the  multi- 
plication of  their  wealth  and  comforts  under  a 
Free  Trade  policy. 

The  "  Protection "  laws  of  England  for  five 
hundred  years  would  make  an  entertaining  book, 
especially  if  it  showed  the  contrary  efforts  made 
to  effect  the  same  object.  Sometimes  exports  of 
raw  materials  were  forbidden  in  order  that  they 
might  be  abundant  in  the  Kingdom,  to  the  en- 
couragement of  the  trades  which  used  them,  while 
the  importation  of  the  same  raw  materials  was 
forbidden  lest  they  might  become  abundant  to 
the  discouragement  of  the  industries  that  produced 
them.     In  one  reign,  shoemakers  were  forbidden 


18  HISTORY  OF   FREE   TRADE. 

to  exercise  the  trade  of  a  tanner,  "in  order  to 
promote  and  improve  the  manufacture  of  leather." 
In  a  subsequent  reign,  shoemakers  were  en- 
couraged to  engage  in  the  tanning  business  by  act 
of  Parliament  "to  promote  the  manufacture  of 
leather;"  and  again,  for  the  very  same  object,  shoe- 
makers were  forbidden  by  law  to  exercise  the 
tanner's  trade. 

All  sorts  of  contradictory  laws  were  passed  at 
various  periods  to  "  protect  "  the  wool  manufacturer 
and  the  wool  grower  at  the  same  time.  Even  so 
late  as  the  reign  of  King  George  the  First,  an  act 
was  passed  "  for  the  encouragement  of  the  woolen 
and  silk  trades."  Any  person  wearing  a  garment 
of  calico  was  subjected  to  a  sericfus  fine.  It  was 
overlooked,  that  this  law,  besides  interfering  with 
the  right  of  the  citizen  to  wear  what  he  chose,  and 
what  he  could  best  afford  to  buy,  actually  dis- 
couraged the  calico  industry  in  order  to  protect 
a  rival  trade.  A  board  of  trade  was  erected  by 
King  James  the  First,  in  1622.  Hume  informs  us 
that  one  of  the  reasons  assigned  in  the  commis- 
sion is,  "  to  remedy  the  low  price  of  wool,  which 
begat  complaints  of  the  decay  of  the  woolen  man- 
ufactory."— the  patent  falsehood  that  dear  wool 
is  a  good  thing  for  the  men  who  make  cloth,  and 
the  tailors  who  make  coats,  being  as  ignorantly 
asserted  then,  as  it  is  impudently  asserted  now. 

In  the  year  1363,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  the 
Third,  when  the  exportation  of  wool  was  strenu- 
ously forbidden,  a  law  was  passed  which  regulated 


THE  ANTI-CORN-LAW  LEAGUE.  19 

the  clothing  of  the  people  and  prescribed  what 
apparel  might  or  might  not  be  worn  by  them  ac- 
cording to  their  respective  conditions  and  rank  in 
life.  The  pretense  for  this  law  was,  that  people 
were  becoming  extravagant  in  dress,  and  that 
luxury  in  this  direction  should  be  restrained.  This 
law  was  repealed  in  the  following  year,  either  be- 
cause it  could  not  be  executed,  or  because  it  was 
an  injury  to  trade.  But  a  hundred  years  later  it 
was  re-enacted,  because  it  was  discovered  that  the 
people  indulged  in  excessive  array  "  to  the  great 
displeasure  of  God,  the  impoverishing  of  England, 
and  the  enriching  of  strange  realms."  The  "  pro- 
tection "  character  of  this  law  is  easily  seen  in  the 
reasons  given  for  its  enactment.  The  English 
were  buying  goods  abroad  because  they  could  get 
them  there  cheaper  and  better  than  they  could 
buy  them  at  home.  The  Protectionists  of  that 
era,  like  their  descendents  in  this,  regarded  all 
purchases  made  abroad  as  a  waste  of  money, 
which  went  to  "  the  enriching  of  strange  realms." 
It  never  occurred  to  them  that  the  articles  they 
bought  came  to  the  "enrichment"  of  their  own 
country.  In  the  blind  economy  of  the  time,  men 
could  not  see  that  riches  might  consist  of  other 
things  than  money. 

The  manufacture  of  certain  commodities  was 
restricted  to  certain  places,  to  "protect"  them 
from  the  competition  of  other  places,  and  to  en- 
courage their  industry.  In  the  reign  of  Uonry 
the  Eighth,  an  act  was   passed   restricting  the 


20  HISTORY   OF  FREE  TRADE. 

making  of  cloths  to  Wotcester,  and  a  few  other 
favored  towns ;  and  in  the  same  reign  the  trade  in 
worsted  yarn  was  limited  to  Norwich  and  the 
county  of  Norfolk ;  and  it  was  provided,  that  no 
person  should  weave  or  manufacture  it,  save  the 
artificers  belonging  to  said  city  or  county. 

In  vain  and  tiresome  gyrations,  like  a  dog  try- 
ing to  catch  his  tail,  the  Protectionists  of  old 
whirled  round  and  round  trying  to  give  special 
aid  to  some  callings  without  injuring  others.  In 
the  reign  of  Edward  the  Sixth  the  saddlers  were 
protected  by  a  monopoly  of  the  trade  in  leather, 
and  their  business  flourished  to  such  an  extent 
that  all  who  doubted  the  wisdom  of  the  law  were 
Bilent  and  ashamed.  "  See  what  Protection  has 
done  for  the  saddler  trade,"  said  the  advocates  of 
the  law,  and  the  Free  Traders  could  not  answer 
them.  After  awhile  it  was  noticed  that  what  was 
a  good  thing  for  the  saddlers  was  a  bad  thing  for 
the  cobblers,  and  they  presented  a  petition  to 
Parliament  complaining  that  the  monopoly  had 
"  wrought  their  utter  impoverishment  and  un- 
doing." So,  therefore,  in  the  reign  of  Mary,  the 
obnoxious  law  was  repealed,  in  order  to  "  protect " 
the  cobblers  from  the  extortions  of  the  saddlers. 

It  was  also  learned  by  costly  experience  that 
the  leather  monopoly  enjoyed  by  the  saddlers  had 
not  only  operated  as  an  unjust  tax  on  the  cobblers 
and  shoemakers,  and  on  everybody  who  wore 
shoes,  but  that  leather  had  deteriorated  in  quality 
as  it  had  increased  in  price.    In  consequence  of 


THE  ANTI-CORN-LAW  LEAGUE.  21 

the  petition  of  the  cobblers,  the  law  was  repealed, 
and  in  the  act  repealing  it,  Parliament  acknowl- 
edged that  it  had  learned  a  good  lesson  in  political 
economy.  After  reciting  the  fact  about  the 
cobblers,  the  act  gives  this  additional  reason  for 
abolishing  the  monopoly  of  the  saddlers,  "and 
forasmuch  also  as  sithence  (since)  the  making  of 
said  estatute  all  kind  of  leather  is  more  slenderly 
and  deceitfully  wrought  and  made  than  ever  be- 
fore, nevertheless  as  dear  or  dearer."  This  pre- 
amble will  apply  to  every  protected  monopoly  in 
the  world. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  multiply  examples.  The 
English  laws  are  full  of  vain  and  mischievous 
attempts  to  make  rivers  run  up  hill,  to  divert 
moral  science  from  its  principles,  and  make  the 
beneficent  streams  of  trade,  commerce,  and  man- 
ufactures flow  the  wrong  way.  They  failed,  as  such 
attempts  must  ever  fail.  They  gave  to  certain 
special  classes  an  artificial  prosperity,  but  this 
prosperity  was  abstracted  from  the  community  at 
large.  The  belief  in  witchcraft  was  accompanied 
by  the  kindred  superstition  that  "government" 
always  kept  on  hand  a  large  surplus  of  prosperity 
created  by  itself,  which  it  could  ladle  out  at 
pleasure  to  help  destitute  people,  professions  and 
trades.  It  was  not  then  known  in  England,  as  it 
is  not  yet  known  in  America,  that  "  government " 
can  create  nothing ;  and  that  if  it  pours  a  cupful 
of  prosperity  upon  this  trade  or  that  one,  it  must 
dip  it  up  from  the  common  fund  of  prosperity 


22  HISTORY   OF  FREE  TRADE. 

created  by  the  labor  of  all  the  rest  of  the  people. 
There  is  positively  no  bounty,  help,  or  endow- 
ment having  a  money  value,  that  government  can 
give  to  one  without  taking  it  from  others.  When 
government  used  to  sell  monopolies  this  truth  was 
more  apparent  than  it  is  now,  because  the  money 
received  for  the  franchise  was  a  confession  that  the 
buyer  of  it  must  get  it  back  with  profit  out  of  the 
consumers  whom  he  was  allowed  to  overcharge 
for  the  article  on  which  he  had  the  monopoly. 
That  government  gives  the  monopoly  for  nothing 
does  not  change  the  principle,  but  it  makes  it 
harder  to  detect.  It  really  makes  no  difference  to 
the  consumer  whether  the  Pennsylvania  miner 
and  manufacturer  pay  the  government  for  a  pro- 
tective tariflf  or  get  it  for  nothing.  If  there  is  any 
money  value  in  it  to  them,  that  value  must  come 
out  of  the  people  who  are  compelled  to  buy  of 
them  whatever  they  have  to  sell. 

Although  the  so-called  protective  system  pre- 
vailed in  England  for  centuries,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  it  never  had  a  peaceful  reign.  Its 
victims  always  protested  against  it,  and  it  never 
altogether  satisfied  even  iti  beneficiaries  and 
advocates.  The  hundreds  of  laws  enacting, 
amending,  and  repealing  its  details  prove  this. 
There  is  no  doubt  also,  that  while  the  system  was 
necessarily  perverted  to  the  unjust  privilege  and 
profit  of  special  classes,  its  authors  originally  de- 
signed it  for  the  encouragement  of  home  industry. 
They  never  looked  beneath   the  surface  of  the 


THE  ANTI-CORN-LAW   LEAGUE.  23 

scheme.  They  saw  ut  the  first  glance  that  a  certain 
trade  was  benefited  when  freed  from  foreign  compe- 
tition and  they  thought  that  therefore  beneath  the 
surface  there  must  be  concealed  an  economic 
principle  that  required  the  legislature  to  protect 
every  business  that  suffered  from  foreign  rivalry. 
Then  began  the  scramble  of  "  interests  "  for  special 
protective  enactments.  The  archives  of  the 
British  Parliament  will  show  that  there  is  scarcely 
an  interest  in  the  country  that  has  not  petitioned 
for  a  monopoly  of  its  own  trade.  The  protective 
system  which  roused  the  fierce  opposition  of  the 
English  manufacturers  from  1836  to  1846  wa& 
really  the  work  of  their  fathers.  For  centuries, 
the  manufacturers  of  woolens,  cottons,  and  other 
fabrics,  believed  that  Protection  and  monopoly 
were  indispensable  to  their  trade ;  and  they  re- 
sisted every  attempt  at  commercial  reform. 

As  the  land  owners  of  England  comprised  an 
overwhelming  majority  in  both  houses  of  Parlia- 
ment, it  was  natural  that  they  should  gradually 
direct  the  protective  legislation  of  the  country  so 
as  to  give  them  a  monopoly  of  the  home  market 
in  every  article  constituting  the  food  of  the  people. 
This  they  did;  and  the  vice  of  their  system 
reached  its  climax  in  the  Corn-Laws  of  1815. 
When  the  battle  of  Waterloo  hud  brought  the  war 
of  the  French  revolution  to  an  end,  and  it  became 
necessary  to  adapt  the  commercial  system  of 
England  to  an  era  of  peace,  it  was  agreed  that 
inasmuch  as  the  landlords  had  not  the  power  to 


24  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

decree  how  many  bushels  of  wheat  should  grow 
on  an  acre  of  land,  they  would,  in  retaliation  for 
this  oversight  of  Providence,  declare  and  establish 
by  law  how  much  a  bushel  the  consumer  should 
pay  for  whatever  quantity  the  acre  might  happen 
to  yield.  It  was  conceded  that  the  farmers  could 
not  pay  the  high  rents  demanded  by  the  landlords 
unless  the  minimum  price  of  wheat  was  fixed  at 
eighty  shillings  a  quarter  ;  and  they  established  it 
at  that  figure.  This  was  about  two  dollars  and  a 
half  a  bushel,  American  money ;  or  as  wages  was 
then,  about  three  days'  work  of  a  mechanic  for  a 
bushel  of  wheat.  The  protective  tarifif  was  "  so 
adjusted  "  as  to  insure  that  price.  The  law  had 
been  altered  two  or  three  times  in  the  interval,  but 
the  principle  of  it  remained  from  1815  to  1846. 

The  law  was  fiercely  and  continuously  assailed, 
but  the  opposition  to  it  was  only  a  sentimental 
protest,  having  no  practical  value.  The  cry  of 
hunger  was  unheeded  by  the  legislature.  The  law 
was  discussed  by  the  press  and  the  magazines,  but 
only  occasionally,  and  rather  as  a  question  of 
ethics  and  abstract  political  economy,  not  as  a 
"  live  issue,"  having  any  present  bearing  on  the 
welfare  of  the  people.  After  the  passage  of  the 
Reform  Bill  in  1832,  the  cry  grew  louder,  and  the 
passionate  verses  of  Ebenezer  Elliott  stirred  the 
feelings  of  the  people,  and  aroused  a  sentiment  of 
indignation  against  the  Corn-Law.  Unfortunately 
for  Elliott  he  was  known  as  the  "  Corn- Law 
Rhymer,"  and  the  nickname,  of  which  indeed  he 


THE  ANTI-CORN-LAW   LEAGUE.  25 

waa  proud,  has  led  the  world  to  believe  that  he 
was  a  rhymester,  and  nothing  more.  But  Elliott 
was  a  true  poet,  and  the  poetic  flame  burned 
within  him  ardent  and  bright  as  the  fire  in  his 
forge  at  Sheffield.  Carlyle,  in  a  review  of  his 
verses,  declared  that  he  was  a  real  poet,  and  one 
who  had  something  to  say ;  a  poet  whose  voice  it 
would  be  well  for  the  government  to  heed. 
Colonel  Perronet  Thompson  in  his  "  Catechism  of 
the  Corn-Laws"  also  started  an  agitation  that 
steadily  increased  in  power.  The  scattering  fire 
of  an  irregular  skirmish  line  advancing  against 
the  Corn-Laws  could  be  heard,  from  London, 
northwest  to  Liverpool,  and  from  there  to  Glasgow. 
Nevertheless  it  was  not  until  about  the  year  1836 
that  the  Free  Traders  made  any  well  organized 
efibrt  against  the  insular  and  bigoted  system  of 
restriction  which  had  burdened  the  industries  of 
England  for  hundreds  of  years.  Up  to  that  time 
the  liberal  and  scientific  principles  of  Free  Trade 
were  regarded  as  political  abstractions,  beautifully 
adapted  to  some  undiscovered  Utopia,  which 
might  be  expected  to  appear  about  the  time  of  the 
millennium.  Up  to  that  time,  the  efforts  of  the 
Free  Traders  were  feeble  and  scattered  over  an 
extensive  field,  fortified  by  the  Protectionists  so 
strongly  in  every  direction,  that  the  reformers 
made  but  slight  impression  upon  the  works  of  the 
enemy.  The  wealth,  profits,  and  social  force 
derived  from  a  hundred  monopolies  had  combined 
and  consolidated  into  a  political  power,  controlling 


26  HISTORY   OF  FREE  TRADE. 

both  branches  of  the  legislature,  the  church,  the 
aristocracy,  and  the  crown.  Not  only  that,  but 
Protection  had  shielded  itself  with  a  national 
sentiment  borrowed  from  a  popular  patriotism 
jealous  of  "foreign  competition."  It  appeared  to 
be  invincible.  In  1839  the  isolated  forces  of  Free 
Trade  became  a  coherent  and  disciplined  organi- 
zation under  the  name  of  the  Anti-Corn-Law 
League.  They  massed  themselves  for  a  concen- 
trated attack  upon  the  Corn  Laws,  the  key  to  the 
whole  Protective  System.  The  Corn  Laws  were  to 
Protection  what  the  Malakoff  was  to  Sebastopol. 
When  that  fell,  the  city  fell.  The  repeal  of  the 
Corn- Laws  meant  the  doom  of  Protection  and  the 
triumph  of  Free  Trade.  The  efforts  of  the  League 
were  directed  to  the  success  of  a  specific  measure, 
the  repeal  of  the  duties  upon  corn.  Under  the 
general  term  "  com  "  in  England  is  comprehended 
flour,  wheat,  oats,  and  breadstuffs  of  every  kind. 


C3HAPTER   II. 

THE    PROTECTION    TRIUMPH. 

Death  of  King  William,  and  Accession  of  Queen  Victoria— 
The  General  Election — Issues — Whigs  and  Tories — Re- 
signation of  the  Ministers  in  1839 — Sir  Robt.  Peel  fails  to 
form  a  Grovemment — The  Whigs  Resume  their  Places — 
Charles  Pelham  Villiers — Begins  the  Attack  on  the  Com- 
Laws — Activity  of  the  League  in  1839  and  1840 — 
Strength  of  Monopoly — The  Session  of  1839— Inauspic- 
ious Beginning — Renewal  of  the  Attack — Peel's  Reply  to 
Mr.  Villiers — Manchester  Petitioners  Refused  a  Hear- 
ing at  the  Bar — Agitation  Outside  —  Methods  of  the 
League — Lord  John  Russell's  Notice  for  a  Committee 
on  the  Corn-Laws — Alarm  of  the  Tories — Government  on 
the  Defensive — Debate  in  the  House  of  Lords — Debate  in 
the  House  of  Commons — Slavery  and  Sugar — Defeat  of 
the  Government  on  Lord  Sandon's  Amendment — Ministers 
Refuse  to  Resign — Want  of  Confidence  Resolution  Car- 
ried— Dissolution  of  Parliament. 

Just  at  the  dawn  of  midsummer,  1837,  the  King 
died,  and  the  Victorian  era  began.  With  the  old 
King  there  went  out  an  age  of  ignorance,  vice,  and 
political  superstition.  With  the  young  Queen 
there  came  in  a  better,  brighter,  and  more  enlight- 
ened day.  There  was  vice  enough  left,  indeed, 
but  it  was  no  longer  respectable.  The  Parliament 
died  with  the  King,  and  a  new  Parliament  was 
chosen.  The  contest  was  between  the  Whigs  on 
one  side,  and  the  Tories  on  the  other.     The  issues 

27 


28    ~  HISTORY  OF  FREE   TRADE. 

were  like  many  of  the  issues  between  the  Demo- 
crats and  Republicans  in  our  own  country  now, — 
rather  of  the  past,  historical,  than  of  the  present, 
real.  The  offices,  however,  were  at  stake,  and 
the  Whigs  won.  They  had  a  majority  in  the  new 
Parliament  of  about  thirty  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. This  in  a  membership  of  six  hundred 
and  fifty-eight,  was  not  so  large  as  might  be 
wished ;  but  by  keeping  close  in  shore,  and  not 
venturing  upon  the  wide  ocean  of  statesmanship, 
they  could  get  along  with  it  comfortably  well, 
and  enjoy  the  power,  the  honors,  and  the  emolu- 
ments of  office. 

The  commercial  policy  of  the  country  was  not 
much  of  an  issue  in  the  election.  The  Tories  were 
all  Protectionists  and  so  were  most  of  the  Whigs. 
They  differed  only  in  degree,  not  in  principle. 
Thirty-eight  Free  Traders  obtained  seats  in  the  new 
Parliament.  They  ranged  themselves  with  the 
Whigs,  as  did  the  Irish  repealers,  and  the  Liberals  of 
every  grade.  What  progressive  elements  existed  in 
the  politics  of  the  time,  were  supposed  to  be  repre- 
sented in  the  Whig  party.  The  Tories,  if  not 
reactionary,  were  at  least,  conservative. 

The  trifling  difference  between  the  two  great 
parties  was  amusingly  shown.  In  1839,  the  min- 
isters came  within  five  votes  of  defeat  on  the  Ja- 
maica bill,  and  at  once  resigned.  Sir  Robert  Peel 
was  sent  for  to  form  a  new  administration.  He 
had  been  Prime  Minister  in  1835,  and  was  the 
leader  of  the  Tory  party.     He  accepted  the  task 


THE    PROTECTION    TRIUMPH.  29 

of  forming  a  government,  but  required  that  certain 
Whig  ladies  of  the  Queen's  household  should  be 
removed  from  office — in  other  words,  they  should 
go  out  with  the  ministry  that  had  brought  them  in. 
The  Queen  would  not  consent  to  this,  whereupon 
Sir  Robert  gave  up  his  task,  and  the  Whigs  re- 
sumed their  places.  Thoso  drawing-room  politics 
were  now  about  to  be  rudely  shaken  by  the  new 
power  just  born  into  the  State:  the  Anti-Corn-Law 
Leagae.  A  "  live  issue  "  was  about  to  be  presented 
to  the  people,  something  of  greater  consequence 
than  the  question,  what  ladies  should  form  the 
Queen's  household.  The  question  was  whether 
or  not  the  food  of  the  people,  and  their  other  com- 
forts of  life,  should  be  made  scarce  and  dear  by 
import  duties  on  foreign  grain,  and  meat,  and 
wool,  and  other  things,  levied  for  the  "  Protection  " 
of  special  classes,  whether  or  not  the  shackles 
which  had  fettered  industry  for  centuries  should 
be  removed  and  the  coiiimerce  of  England  made 
free. 

It  is  somewhat  curious  that  the  first  leader  in 
Parliament  of  the  commercial  reformation  came 
not  from  the  mercantile  or  manufacturing  classes, 
neither  was  he  a  man  "of  the  people."  He  was 
of  the  titled  aristocracy,  a  brother  of  the  Earl  of 
Clarendon.  The  Hon.  Charles  Pelham  Villiers, 
member  for  Wolverhampton,  a  young  man  of  35 
or  so,  was  the  head  and  front  of  the  Free  Trade 
party.  He  had  eminent  capacity  for*  leadership, 
a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  question,  an  intense 


30  HISTORY   OF  FREE  TRADE. 

conviction  of  the  wisdom  and  the  justice  of  his 
cause,  good  temper,  and  what  Lord  Beaconsfield 
freely  accorded  him,  a  "  terse  eloquence,  and  vivid 
perception."  He  was  almost  the  first  man  of  his 
time  in  Parliament  who  had  vision  bright  enough 
to  see  that  the  feudal  system  of  commerce  was 
crippling  the  industries  of  Britain,  and  he  was  the 
only  one  who  had  faith  to  believe  that  the  system 
could  be  overthrown.  He  was  in  the  House  of 
Commons  six  years  before  Cobden  appeared  within 
its  walls,  and  eight  years  before  John  Bright  ob- 
tained a  seat  there.  Although  in  actual  debate  he 
was  contented  to  fall  behind  those  powerful  trib- 
unes, yet  the  leadership  of  the  party  in  Parlia- 
ment was  never  taken  from  him. 

On  the  13th  of  December,  1838,  the  Manchester 
Chamber  of  Commerce  resolved  to  petition  Parlia- 
ment for  a  repeal  of  the  Corn-Laws,  and  in  Janu- 
ary, 1839,  a  meeting  of  deputies  from  all  parts  of 
the  Kingdom  was  held  in"  Manchester,  to  consider 
the  best  means  of  obtaining  the  repeal.  On  the 
assembling  of  Parliament  in  the  same  year,  the 
delegates  met  at  Westminster,  and  organized  the 
Anti-Corn-Law  League.  Mr.  Villiers  was  unani- 
mously chosen  leader  of  the  cause  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  Referring  to  this  meeting,  a  Lon- 
don paper,  in  a  brief  sketch  of  Mr.  Villiers,  said, 
"  It  needed  no  common  courage  to  undertake  the 
leadership.  There  were  but  few  Free  Traders  in 
the  House.  The  ministry  and  the  expectants  of 
office  were  alike  opposed  to  Mr.  Villiers.    What- 


THE    PROTECTION    TRIUMPH.  ^ 

ever  party  there  might  be  for  some  change  in  the 
Corn-Laws,  there  was  in  reality  no  party  for  the 
total  and  immediate  repeal.  Free  Traders  on 
principle — those  who  would  admit  no  comprom- 
ise were  few,  either  in  the  House  or  out  of  doors. 
Public  opinion  and  a  Parliamentary  party  had 
both  to  be  made." 

Previous  to  this  memorable  meeting,  Mr.  Vil- 
liers  had  begun  the  great  Parliamentary  struggle 
for  Free  Trade.  On  the  15th  of  March,  1838,  he 
moved  that  the  House  go  into  committee  on  the 
Corn-Laws.  Like  Mr.  Benton  with  his  expung- 
ing resolution,  Mr.  Villiers  renewed  this  famous 
motion  every  year  until  the  victory  was  won. 
He  began  by  remarking  "  that  it  might  be  said  that 
this  was  not  a  fit  time  to  bring  forward  the  sub- 
ject, because  the  public  mind  was  in  a  state  of  re- 
pose with  respect  to  it.  The  purpose  of  the  Corn- 
Laws  was  protection  to  the  landed  interest.  He 
then  showed  that  the  House  of  Commons  was 
composed  principally  of  landlords,  and  he  con- 
tended that  the  Corn- Laws  were  measures  adopted 
by  themselves  in  the  selfish  pursuit  of  their  own 
profit  and  advantage  at  the  expense  of  all  the  rest 
of  the  people. 

In  ridicule  of  the  claim  that  in  order  to  "  pro- 
tect" the  landlords,  foreign  grain  must  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  Kingdom  until  the  domestic  arti- 
cle had  reached  a  certain  price,  Mr.  Villiers  made 
this  happy  comparieon,  "  Suppose  a  majority  of 
hand-loom  weavers  in  Parliament.    Might  they 


32  HISTORY    OP    FREE    TRADE. 

not  be  expected  on  this  principle  to  prohibit  power- 
looms,  or,  at  all  events,  enact  that  until  cloth  pro- 
duced by  hand  labor  reached  a  certain  price,  that 
produced  by  power  should  bear  a  fluctuating 
duty  ?"  He  contended  that  the  resources  of  the 
country  would  be  best  developed  "  by  employing 
the  population  in  those  pursuits  for  which  the 
country  afforded  the  greatest  facilities."  This 
really  seems  like  an  economic  axiom,  and  yet  it 
was  then  denied  in  England,  and  is  now  denied 
in  America.  The  contrary  doctrine  is  maintained, 
and  we  are  passionately  told  that  the  "  pursuits  " 
that  do  not  pay,  must  be  made  to  pay,  by  the  tax- 
ation of  the  pursuits  that  do.  Mr.  Villiers  charged 
that  the  hostile  policy  of  other  nations  was  pro- 
voked by  the  Protective  System  of  Great  Britain. 
He  said, ''  Our  own  prohibition  system  has  driven 
Prussia  and  the  United  States  to  have  recourse  to 
a  corresponding  one,  nor  would  they  consent  to 
take  our  manufactures  unless  we  consented  to  re- 
ceive their  grain."  The  motion  for  the  committee 
was  refused  by  300  to  95.  To  this  majority  the 
Tories  furnished  226,  the  Whigs  74.  There  were 
263  members  who  did  not  think  the  matter  worth 
voting  on  at  all. 

The  League,  once  formed,  soon  showed  that  it 
was  terribly  in  earnest,  and  its  activity  disquieted 
"  the  two  great  parties."  Its  agents  were  in  every 
town.  It  circulated  pamphlets,  by  the  million. 
It  assumed  the  task  of  instructing  a  whole  people 
in  the  elements  of  political  economy.    Its  orators 


THE    PROTECTION    TRIUMPH.  33 

were  everywhere.  In  every  corner  of  the  King- 
dom they  challenged  the  Protectionists  to  public 
discussion,  and  threw  them  painfully  on  the  de- 
fensive. In  the  manufacturing  districts  its  meet- 
ings numbered  thousands.  Those  masses  of  peo- 
ple did  not  have  political  influence  in  proportion 
to  their  numbers,  for  few  of  them  had  votes.  Be- 
fore the  League  was  two  years  old,  it  had  become 
a  great  power  outside  the  walls  of  Parliament,  al- 
though, inside,  it  had  no  strength,  except  in  the 
character  and  ability  of  its  advocates,  and  the  irri- 
sistible  logic  of  its  argument. 

The  work  before  it  was  appalling.  Monopoly 
was  so  strongly  intrenched  in  England  as  to  seem 
invincible.  It  was  supreme  in  both  houses  of  Par- 
liament. The  privileged  orders  and  the  "  pro- 
tected "  classes  were,  of  course,  all  defenders  of  it. 
The  middle  classes — therealJohn  Bull — were  very 
much  imbued  with  the  idea  that  British  patriot- 
ism required  them  to  support  the  policy  that  made 
them  "  independent  of  foreign  countries."  Worse 
than  all,  the  masses  of  the  people,  the  working 
classes,  were  Protectionists,  as  will  appear  a  little 
farther  on.  They  were  everlastingly  haunted  ])y  a 
ghost  called  "over-production;"  they  believed  that 
scarcity  was  a  good  thing  because  it  created  a  de- 
mand for  labor,  and  they  dreaded  lest  they  be 
brought  into  competition  with  the  "  pauper  labor  " 
of  foreign  countries. 

The  Parliamentary  session  of  1880  opened 
inauspiciously  for  the  Free  Traders.     They  were 


34  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

weak  enough  at  the  best ;  and  as  bad  luck  would 
have  it,  they  were  literally  extinguished  by  the 
indiscretion  of  one  of  their  own  men.  In  the  ver- 
nacular of  the  American  school  boy,  he  "gave  them 
away."  The  manner  of  it  was  this.  The  form  of 
opening  Parliament  is  by  a  speech  from  the  throne. 
After  that,  an  address  to  the  Queen  in  answer  to 
it  is  adopted  by  each  house.  The  mover  and  sec- 
onder of  the  address  are  selected  by  the  Ministers 
at  a  Cabinet  council,  and  to  be  chosen  for  that  duty 
is  regarded  as  something  of  a  personal  and  polit- 
ical distinction.  The  honor  of  moving  the  address 
in  the  House  of  Commons  is  generally  conferred 
upon  some  member  connected  with  the  aristocracy 
or  the ''  landed  interest;"  that  of  seconding  it  is  gen- 
erally given  to  some  member  identified  with  what 
the  Americans  call  the  "  business  interests  "  of  the 
country,  somebody  interested  in  merchandise  or 
manufacture.  In  the  present  case  the  distinction 
of  seconding  the  address  was  bestowed  upon  Mr. 
G.  W.  Wood,  a  Free  Trader,  and  Chairman  of  the 
Manchester  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

Of  course  it  is  expected  of  the  mover  and  sec- 
onder of  the  address  that  they  will  polish  up  the 
politics  of  the  ministerial  side,  and  make  them 
look  as  bright  and  tidy  as  possible.  Mr.  Wood, 
thinking  that  it  was  his  duty  to  make  a  good 
showing  on  such  an  important  occasion,  declared 
that  everything  was  flourishing  and  prosperous; 
that  trade,  commerce,  agriculture,  and  manufac- 
tures, were  at  the  present  moment  in  a  most  sat- 


THE    PROTECTION    TRIUMPH.  35 

isfactory  condition,  and  he  produced  the  statistics 
to  prove  it  all.  He  said  that  the  tranquillity  of  the 
country  on  the  subject  of  the  Corn-Laws  was  ow- 
ing to  a  fortunate  cheapness  in  the  price  of  food. 
Mr.  Wood  was  flattered  by  generous  cheering,  but 
what  confused  and  bewildered  him  was,  that  it  all 
came  from  the  wrong  side  of  the  House.  His  en- 
couragement came  from  Sir  Robert  Peel  and  the 
Tories,  and  not  from  his  own  party.  His  own 
friends  were  writhing  in  pain,  because  Mr.  Wood, 
being  a  Free  Trader,  was  expected  to  talk  the  other 
way.  The  Tory  leader  could  well  quote  the  pious 
exclamation  of  Cromwell  at  the  battle  of  Dunbar, 
"  The  Lord  hath  delivered  them  into  our  hands." 

Sir  Robert  Peel  was  not  slow  to  avail  himself 
of  the  advantage  given  him  by  Mr.  Wood.  With 
affected  gravity  he  congratulated  everybody  on 
the  prosperous  condition  of  everything,  and 
showed  from  the  statistics  of  Mr.  Wood  the  value 
of  the  "Protective"  System.  He  said,  "  Coming, 
as  this  speech  did,  not  only  from  the  seconder  of 
the  address,  but  from  the  Chairman  of  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  at  Manchester,  nothing 
could  go  further  to  confirm  those  who  were  favor- 
able to  the  continuance  of  the  present  state  of 
things  in  their  oj)inions,  and  to  awaken  the  doubts 
and  suspicions  of  those  who  had  been  desirous  of 
an  alteration." 

Mr.  Villiers  tried  to  counteract  the  mischief 
done  by  Mr.  Wood,  but  failed.  He  condemned 
Sir  Robert  Peel  for  condescending  to  avail  himself 


36  HISTOBY   OF   FREE  TRADE. 

of  the  miserable  and  fallacious  reasoning  of  Mr. 
Wood.  He  then  tried  to  show  where  the  fallacies 
lay,  but  he  was  embarrassed  by  Mr.  Wood's 
admissions,  and  after  stumbling  over  that  gentle- 
man's "  facts  "  until  he  was  tired  and  sore,  he  sat 
down.  He  was  in  the  situation  of  the  senior 
counsel  trying  to  correct  the  mistakes  of  his 
associate  brother,  whose  awkward  ingenuity  has 
drawn  from  his  own  witness  some  testimony  very 
damaging  to  his  own  side. 

Lord  John  Russell,  the  Whig  leader,  who  had 
chosen  Mr.  Wood  to  second  the  address,  probably 
enjoyed  his  innocent  blunders  as  much  as  any- 
body. At  all  events  he  declined  to  help  him  out 
of  his  tangle.  He  contented  himself  with  some 
vague  generalities  to  the  effect  that  "  the  time  had 
arrived "  when  things  must  be  looked  into,  and 
when  it  should  be  considered  whether  the  present 
system  acted  beneficially  or  not.  With  this  feeble 
flicker  the  debate  ended.  The  Free  Traders  had 
lost  ground. 

Mr.  Villiers  was  not  disconcerted,  and  in  a  few 
days  he  returned  to  the  attack.  His  courage  was 
proof  steel,  and  his  temper  perfect.  He  kncAv  that 
the  "  protection  "  argument  was  a  contradiction 
and  denial  of  the  very  mathematics  of  political 
economy.  It  delighted  him  to  see  his  adversaries 
tripping  one  another  up  with  contrary  reasons 
why  the  Protective  System  ought  to  be  maintained ; 
to  make  things  cheap  and  to  make  them  dear, 
plentiful  and  scarce,  to  promote  the  acquisition  of 


THE    PROTECTION    TRIUMPH.  37 

riches  by  transferring  wealth  out  of  one  pocket 
into  another,  and  to  keep  in  perpetual  motion  that 
circular  benevolence  which  robs  Peter  to  pay  Paul, 
and  Paul  to  pay  Timothy,  and  Timothy  to  pay 
Peter,  and  thus  round  and  round  forever.  A 
biographer  said  of  Mr.  Villiers  that  he  was  "a 
political  economist,  not  only  by  study,  but  by  a 
natural  aptness,  amounting  almost  to  instinct." 
On  the  19th  of  February,  1839,  he  renewed  the 
conflict  by  moving  that  certain  persons  be  heard 
at  the  bar  of  the  House  in  support  of  a  petition 
complaining  of  the  operation  of  the  Corn-Laws. 

In  supporting  his  motion,  Mr.  Villiers  said, 
"In  comparing  ourselves  with  America,  we  find 
her  possessed  of  great  natural  advantages; 
proximity  to  the  raw  material,  and  cheapness  of 
power."  He  showed  that  the  Protective  System 
had  made  England  a  dear  country  to  live  in,  and 
that  its  operation  was  to  help  the  rival  manufac- 
turers of  Germany,  Switzerland,  and  the  United 
States.  Mr.  Villiers  could  not  then  anticipate  that 
the  Americans  would  with  perverse  deliberation 
set  themselves  to  work  to  nullify  their  "great  nat- 
ural advantages ;  "  that  they  would  with  inverted 
statesmanship  contrive  and  establish  a  policy 
for  the  very  purpose  of  making  the  United  S*:ates 
"  a  dear  country  to  live  in  ;  "  and  that  by  the  in- 
genious folly  of  a  high  protective  tariff  they  would 
shut  their  manufactures  out  of  the  great  markets 
of  the  world. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  resisted  the  motion,  but  on  this 


38  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE. 

occasion  he  had  the  serious  task  of  answering  the 
strong  arguments  of  a  political  economist  and  a 
statesman.  The  weak  and  imprudent  conces- 
sions of  Mr.  Wood  would  not  avail  him  now.  He 
said  that  he  could  not  admit  that  English  manu- 
facturers were  in  an  alarming  state,  and  that  "  our 
former  customers  were  about  to  drive  us  from  the 
markets."  "The  object  of  the  gentlemen  op- 
posite," he  said,  "  is  to  increase  the  price  of  grain 
in  foreign  countries  in  order  to  check  the  progress 
of  their  manufactures.  Not  a  very  benevolent 
object,  I  must  confess."  He  then  said,  "  We  use 
52,000,000  quarters  of  grain  yearly.  Would  it  be 
wise  that  this  country  should  be  called  upon  to 
make  the  experiment  how  far  in  case  of  war  and 
famine  it  might  rely  upon  procuring  the  neces- 
sary amount  of  food  from  foreign  countries  ?"  It 
was  the  very  irony  of  fate  that  seven  years  after 
this,  when  the  Protective  System  had  culminated 
in  "famine,"  Sir  Robert  Peel  himself  as  Prime  Min- 
ister, should  be  compelled  to  throw  his  country 
for  salvation  upon  food  "  from  foreign  countries." 
Itis  evidence  how  insignificant  was  the  influence 
of  the  Free  Traders  in  England  at  this  time,  that 
although  they  supported  the  Whig  party,  and  the 
Whigs  were  in  power,  they  could  not  obtain 
respectful  consideration  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
The  motion  of  Mr.  Villiers  that  the  Manchester 
petitioners  might  be  heard  at  the  bar,  was  lost  by 
861  to  172,  and  Lord  John  Russell,  and  Lord 
Palmerston,  the  Whig  leaders  in  the  House,  both 


THE    PROTECTION    TRIUMPH.  39 

voted  in  the  majority,  both  destined  to  be  after- 
wards Free  Trade  Prime  Ministers  of  England. 

The  difficulties  in  the  way  only  stimulated  the 
industry  of  the  League,  and  within  two  years  it 
had  become  a  source  of  alarm  to  the  Tories,  and 
of  perplexit/^the  Whigs.  Many  of  the  Whig 
members  sympathized  with  in  a  general  sort  of 
way  and  to  a  limited  extent.  They  were,  how- 
ever, timid  and  irresolute.  They  carried  on  the 
government  in  a  lazy,  languid  manner,  and  were 
anxious  to  be  let  "  alone."  They  thought  they 
could  live  for  ever  on  the  Reform  Bill  triumph  of 
1832,  but  the  Reform  Bill  was  only  a  beginning, 
not  an  end.  The  fierce  discussion  of  that  measure 
had  stimulated  the  mental  faculties  of  the  people, 
and  a  craving  thirst  for  knowledge  took  possession 
of  them. 

The  Penny  Magazine  was  in  active  circulation, 
lectures  were  popular,  Mechanics'  Institutes  were 
multiplying,  and,  in  the  expressive  language  of 
Lord  Brougham,  the  schoolmaster  was  abroad  in 
the  land.  The  Whigs  were  afraid  to  risk  their 
small  majority  by  the  introduction  of  any  great 
measure  of  public  policy,  and  by  reason  of  that 
very  timidity,  their  trifling  majority  was  gradually 
dwindling  away.  They  asked  permission  to  doze 
in  comfort  on  the  treasury  benches,  but  the  noise 
of  the  League  disturbed  their  slumbers,  and  the 
Tories  were  waiting  and  watching  their  own  op- 
portunity which  was  close  at  hand. 

Suddenly  it  occurred  to  the  Whigs  that  in  this 


40  HISTORY   OF  FREE  TRADE. 

new  active  world  of  politics,  even  governments 
must  do  something  for  a  living.  They  saw  the 
great  moral  power  already  in  the  hands  of 
the  League,  and  Lord  John  Russell  thought 
that  if  he  could  borrow  some  of  that,  he  might 
spiritualize  the  Whig  party  and  save  the  admin- 
istration. Accordingly,  in  the  month  of  April, 
1841,  he  gave  notice  that  on  the  31st  of  May 
he  would  move  that  the  House  resolve  itself 
into  a  committee  to  take  into  consideration  the 
duties  on  the  importation  of  foreign  grain.  This 
announcement  startled  the  Tories,  for  it  showed 
that  the  doctrines  of  the  League  had  permeated 
the  administration  itself  They  closed  their  ranks, 
and  assumed  the  oflFensive.  Lord  Sandon,  mem- 
ber for  Liverpool,  asked  Lord  John  Russell  what 
the  government  intended  to  do  with  the  Corn- 
Laws  ?  He  answered  that  they  proposed  to  abol- 
ish the  •'  sliding  scale,"  and  impose  a  moderate 
fixed  duty  of  eight  shillings  a  quarter  (24  cents  a 
bushel)  upon  wheat,  and,  a  proportionate  duty 
upon  other  grain.  The  "  sliding  scale  "  was  a  con- 
trivance by  which  the  duties  on  foreign  grain  were 
fixed  according  to  the  prices  of  it  in  the  domestic 
market.  When  the  price  of  wheat  in  Mark  Lane 
was  high,  the  duties  on  imported  wheat  were  low, 
and  vice  versa,  the  intention  being  to  keep  the  price 
of  grain  always  at  such  a  height  as  to  furnish  the 
British  farmer  a  fair  degree  of  "  Protection"  against 
the  "  pauper  labor  "  and  untaxed  lands  of  foreign 
countries. 


THE    PROTECTION    TRIUMPH.  41 

In  this  moderate  proposition  of  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell the  Tories  saw  a  menace  against  the  monopo- 
lies which  they  had  enjoyed  for  centuries.  With 
the  bravery  of  desperation  they  determined  to 
come  out  of  their  intrenchments  and  attack.  They 
would  not  wait  until  the  31st  of  May,  but  deter- 
mined to  precipitate  the  issue  there  and  then. 
Sir  Robert  Peel,  amid  great  excitement,  declared 
that  unless  Lord  John  Russell  consented  to  sub- 
mit his  motion  at  once  he  might  be  compelled  to 
do  so;  for  the  House  would  not  make  itself  the 
instrument  of  agitation.  Mr.  Labouchere,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Cabinet,  anticipated  General  Hancock 
by  a  period  of  thirty-nine  years.  He  tried  to  allay 
the  excitement  by  declaring  that "  the  revision  of  the 
tariflf  is  not  a  party  question."  He  was  laughed 
at  for  the  statement  as  General  Hancock  was  in 
the  next  generation. 

So  long  as  the  agitation  for  the  repeal  of  the 
Corn-Laws  was  confined  to  the  Anti-Corn-Law 
League  outside  of  Parliament,  the  public  mind  re- 
tained its  usual  tranquillity ;  but  when  an  attack 
upon  the  protective  tariff  was  made  by  the  Gov- 
ernment itself,  the  affair  became  serious,  and  all 
classes  of  society  became  greatly  agitated  and  some 
of  them  alarmed.  Both  parties  went  into  training 
at  once,  for  the  approaching  contest.  The  League 
redoubled  its  exertions.  It  organized  new  branches 
of  the  association,  and  sent  lecturers  and  pamphlets 
into  every  part  of  the  Kingdom.  On  the  other 
hand,  all  the  protected  "  interests  "  combined  for 


42  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

mutual  defense.  Meetings  were  convened  of  par- 
ties connected  with  the  Shipping  and  North  Amer- 
ican "  interests,"  of  the  planters,  merchants,  and 
others  interested  in  the  West  India  Colonies,  of 
the  representatives  of  East  India  property,  of  the 
societies  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  and  all  the 
threatened  monopolies  consolidated  for  "  Protec- 
tion." 

It  was  unlucky  for  the  Government  that  it  was 
on  the  defensive  from  the  start ;  and  shortly  on 
the  run.  Like  Louis  Napoleon  in  1870,  it  declared 
war,  and  instead  of  invading  the  enemies  territo- 
ries, took  up  a  defensive  line  of  battle,  was  beaten, 
routed,  and  destroyed.  The  opposition  in  Parlia- 
ment at  once  advanced,  and  their  first  attack  was 
made  in  the  House  of  Lords.  On  the  3d  of  May, 
the  Duke  of  Buckingham  presented  120  petitions 
against  the  repeal  of  the  Corn-Laws.  He  improved 
the  occasion  to  attack  Lord  Melbourne  for  his  in- 
consistency in  consenting  to  alter  the  Corn-Laws 
after  the  strong  language  he  had  formerly  used 
against  any  such  revolutionary  project. 

It  so  happened  that  Lord  Melbourne  was  at  this 
time  Prime  Minister  of  England,  and  he  presented 
an  exceedingly  big  target  for  the  shafts  of  the  Duke 
of  Buckingham,  because,  only  the  year  before,  he 
had  said  contemptuously,  that  the  repeal  of  the 
Corn-Laws  was  '•  the  most  insane  project  that  ever 
entered  a  man's  head."  And  he  also  said  that  "  it 
would  be  as  easy  to  repeal  the  monarchy."  Lord 
Melbourne  made  a  rather  lame  apology  for  his 


THE    PROTECTION    TRIUMPH.  43 

present  position,  but  maintained  that  he  had 
never  committed  himself  to  the  opinion  that 
the  Corn-Laws  were  perfect,  and  should  never  be 
amended. 

The  Earl  of  Ripon  then  asked  Lord  Melbourne 
whether  the  proposed  alteration  of  the  Corn-Laws 
was  to  be  on  the  principle  of  taxation  for  revenue, 
or  for  protection?  He  said,  "The  principle  of 
*  Protection '  rests  on  humane  and  consistent 
grounds,  but  by  abandoning  this,  and  taking  up 
the  principle  of  ta)^ng  corn  for  revenue,  you  would 
do  that  which  had  never  been  attempted  in  any 
country  of  the  world,  and  which  would  be  the 
most  impolitic,  unjustifiable,  and  cruel  act  ever 
imposed  upon  a  reluctant  Parliament."  The  "  cru- 
elty "  of  giving  the  people  abundant  food  was 
maintained  by  the  Protectionists  until  that  "  hu- 
mane "  system  actually  culminated  in  famine. 
Lord  Melbourne,  in  answering  tne  Earl  of  Ripon, 
said  that  the  alteration  of  the  Corn- Laws 
"would  be  unquestionably  upon  the  principle  of 
Protection." 

The  Earl  of  Winchelsea,  a  weak-minded  old 
gentleman,  said  "  that  it  is  a  universal  axiom  that 
no  country  should  be  left  dependent  on  others  for 
the  necessary  articles  of  subsistence."  He  con- 
soled the  House,  with  the  assurance  that  "the 
people  are  too  reflecting  to  be  deceived  with  the 
promise  of  cheap  bread."  "  They  know,"  said  the 
noble  Earl,  that  "  cheap  bread  means  low  wages." 
The  report  of  the  debate  is  authority  for  tne  state- 


44  HISTORY  OF   FREE  TRADE. 

ment  that  this  nonsense  was  received  with  "  loud 
cheering."  It  would  be  incredible  in  this  enlight- 
ened day,  did  we  not  know  that  the  same  ar- 
gument is  greeted  with  "loud  cheering  "  in  the 
halls  of  the  American  Congress. 

The  attack  in  the  House  of  Commons  was  made 
on  the  8th  of  May,  when  Mr.  Baring,  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer,  presented  his  annual  budget. 
The  discussion  of  the  budget  resolved  itself  into  a 
debate  on  the  corn  and  sugar  duties.  There  was  a 
deficiency  in  the  revenue,  and  Mr.  Baring  proposed 
to  make  it  up  by  a  reduction  of  the  duties  on  su- 
gar. This  may  seem  to  the  American  economist 
a  strange  way  of  increasing  the  revenue,  but  the 
plan  of  Mr.  Baring  was  undoubtedly  sound.  The 
duty  on  sugar  was  a  "  Protective "  duty  for  the 
benefit  of  the  planters  of  the  British  West  Indies. 
To  the  extent  of  that  Protection  it  discouraged 
importation,  and^while  the  revenue  sufiered,  the 
people  received  no  benefit.  They  paid  the  tax, 
but  it  went  into  the  pockets  of  the  planters,  and 
not  into  the  treasury.  The  following  figures  make 
the  matter  clearer  than  a  long  sermon  could.  In 
1841,  under  a  high  tariff,  each  inhabitant  of  Great 
Britain  consumed  15  lbs.  of  sugar ;  in  1881,  under  a 
low  tariff",  each  inhabitant  consumed  58  lbs.  or 
nearly  four  times  as  much.  The  low  duties  quadru- 
pled the  importation,  and  at  the  same  time  increased 
the  revenue.  Mr.  Baring  proposed  to  avail  him- 
self of  this  principle,  and  supply  the  deficiency  of 
the  revenue  by  reducing  the  duties  on  sugar.     The 


THE    PROTECTION    TRroMPH.  45 

Protectionists  all  rallied  to  their  colors  to  resist 
this  encroachment  on  monopoly. 

The  challenge  to  the  government  came  in  the 
shape  of  the  following  motion  offered  by  Lord 
Sandon,  "  That  considering  the  sacrifices  made  by 
the  country  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  this 
House  cannot  consent  to  a  reduction  of  the  sugar 
duties."  It  is  important  to  observe  that  the  op- 
position to  cheap  sugar  was  placed  by  the  Pro- 
tectionists on  high  moral  and  humanitarian  ground, 
•the  discouragement  of  slave  labor.  The  opposition 
to  cheap  sugar  in  the  United  States  is  placed  on  the 
same  ground.  In  1881,  an  old  slaveholder,  sitting 
in  the  American  Congress  as  a  member  from  the 
State  of  Louisiana,  made  a  heart-breaking  appeal 
to  the  House,  not  to  reduce  the  tariff  on  sugar^ 
because  if  they  did,  it  would  encourage  the  wicked 
sugar  of  Cuba  and  Brazil,  the  product  of  the  un- 
paid toil  of  the  slave.  He  was  overcome  with 
emotion,  and  as  he  took  his  seat  he  wiped  his 
weeping  eyes.  The  very  same  appeal  was  made 
in  the  British  Parliament  in  1841,  by  the  old 
slaveholders  there,  who  had  made  their  wealth 
out  of  their  West  India  plantations,  and  who  had 
strenuously  resisted  the  Act  of  Emancipation 
passed  in  1832. 

The  crocodile  tears  of  those  adamantine  Tories 
actually  softened  the  hearts  of  some  of  the  gen- 
uine abolitionists,  and  Mr.  O'Connell,  who  was  a 
partisan  of  the  government  and  a  Free  Trader, 
gave  notice  of  a  motion  to  the  eflect  "  that  any 


46  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

diminution  of  the  duty  on  foreign  sugar  should 
be  strictly  limited  to  that  which  was  the  product 
of  free  labor."  So  ingeniously  did  the  Tories 
manage  to  mix  up  Protection  and  philanthropy, 
the  sorrows  of  the  negro  and  sugar,  that  some  of 
the  veteran  abolitionists,  unable  to  separate  them, 
actually  voted  against  the  government. 

Lord  John  Russell  uncovered  this  impudent 
hypocrisy  and  made  fun  of  it.  He  said,  "  If  the 
House  is  resolved  against  taking  slave-grown 
sugar,  what  do  you  say  to  the  admission  of  other 
articles  of  slave-labor?  Slave-grown  coffee  for 
instance.  Did  the '  man  who  was  horrified  at 
drinking  a  cup  of  slave-grown  coffee  redeem  the 
potation  and  relieve  his  conscience  by  putting  in 
a  lump  of  free-labor  sugar  ?  "  He  was  sarcastic 
and  severe  upon  the  Tories  for  having  opposed 
emancipation,  although  they  now  pretended  to  be 
shocked  at  using  slave-grown  sugar. 

Lord  Stanley  and  Sir  Robert  Peel  were  the 
principal  speakers  on  the  other  side.  Lord  Stanley 
opposed  the  reduction  of  the  sugar  duties  upon 
"  Protection  "  grounds,  and  said  that  if  it  was 
necessary  to  foster  a  manufacture  in  its  infancy  by 
Protection  it  was  especially  necessary  in  the 
present  case  of  the  sugar  trade.  He  also  opposed 
it  on  anti-slavery  grounds,  and  he  denounced  the 
scheme  as  "  the  last  effort  of  expiring  desperation 
on  the  part  of  a  falling  government."  It  should 
be  stated  here  that  Lord  Stanley  himself  did  vote 
for  emancipation. 


PROTECTION     TRIUMPHANT.  47 

Sir  Robert  Peel  opposed  the  reduction  of  the 
sugar  duties  on  the  same  grounds  as  Lord  Stanley. 
He  said,  "  If  I  had  been  in  oflBce  I  should  have 
taken  the  same  course  that  I  did  take ;  and  if  I 
should  be  in  office,  I  never  contemplate  changing 
it."  Then  addressing  Lord  John  Russell  person- 
ally, he  said,  "  I  don't  propose  to  follow  your  ex- 
ample, to  resist  the  proposition  now  under  discus- 
sion this  year,  and  come  down  the  next  with  a 
motion  for  its  adoption."  There  is  a  warning  in 
the  Bible,  "  Let  him  that  thinketh  he  standeth 
take  heed  lest  he  fall,"  and  the  value  of  it  was 
exemplified  in  the  fate  of  Sir  Robert  Peel.  The 
next  year  he  was  Prime  Minister,  and  he  did 
**  come  down  to  the  House,"  and  do  the  very  thing 
that  in  taunting  boast  he  told  Lord  John  Russell 
he  would  not  do. 

The  debate  lasted  from  the  7th  to  the  18th  of 
May,  and  upwards  of  eighty  members  addressed 
the  House.  When  it  ended  the  Tories  had  the 
best  of  it.  Lord  Sandon's  resolution  prevailed ; 
and  on  the  motion  that  "the  speaker  do  now 
leave  the  chair  "  the  government  was  beaten  by 
the  unexpected  majority  of  317  to  281  The  cheers 
of  the  Protectionists  rang  out  peal  after  peal  like 
the  laughter  of  a  chime  of  bells ;  they  rever- 
berated through  the  great  hall  of  William  Rufus  ; 
they  burst  into  Palace  yard,  and  chased  each  other 
among  the  Gothic  arches  of  the  old  Abbey  across 
the  way,  where  Pitt  and  Fox  lay  sleeping  side  by 
side. 


48  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

To  the  amazement  of  the  country  the  ministers 
did  not  resign,  but  on  the  next  evening  Mr.  Baring 
with  a  brass-mounted  hardihood  that  did  him 
credit,  coolly  announced  that  on  Monday  night  he 
should  move  the  annual  Sugar  Duties.  Lord 
Darlington  in  a  great  rage,  and  amid  loud  cries  of 
"  order "  demanded  to  know  when  Lord  John 
Russell  intended  to  bring  on  the  question  of  the 
Corn-Laws.  His  Lordship  quietly  answered,  "  On 
Friday,  the,4th  of  June."  Before  that  day,  sen- 
tence of  dismissal  was  pronounced  by  the  House 
of  Commons  against  him  and  his  government, 
and  he  never  got  a  chance  to  introduce  his  plans. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  determined  not  to  allow  the 
ministers  any  time  to  recover  from  their  great  de- 
feat! At  the  earliest  moment  possible  under  the 
rules,  he  gave  notice  that  on  the  ensuing  Thursday 
(the  27th  of  May)  he  should  move  the  following 
resolution :  "  That  Her  Majesty's  ministers  do  not 
sufficiently  possess  the  confidence  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  to  enable  them  to  carry  through  the 
House,  measures  which  they  deem  of  essential 
importance  to  the  public  welfare ;  and  that  their 
continuance  in  office  under  such  circumstances  is 
at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution." 
After  four  nights'  debate  his  resolution  was  car- 
ried by  a  majority  of  one  vote;  the  numbers 
were  312  to  311.  From  this  blow  the  Whig  party 
never  recovered.  It  was  stunned  and  bewildered 
by  it.  The  ministers  could  not  believe  it  real.  It 
appeared  to  them  impossible  that  within  ten  years 


THE    PROTECTION    TRIUMPH.  49 

of  the  passage  of  the  Reform  Bill,  the  Tories 
should  once  more  be  in  the  ascendancy.  They 
therefore  refused  to  resign,  but  dissolved  the  Par- 
liament. They  appealed  from  the  verdict  of  the 
House  of  Commons  to  the  tribunal  of  the  people 
at  the  polls,  and  there  also  the  judgment  was 
•against  them. 


CHAPTER  III. 
A  TORY  MINISTRY. 

The  Election  of  1841— Character  of  the  Contest — Triumph 
of  the  Tories — Richard  Cobden — Meeting  of  Parliament 
— Debate  on  the  Address — The  Duke  of  WelUogton — 
Daniel  O'Connell — Ministers  Defeated — They  Resign — 
Sir  Eobert  Peel  Becomes  Prime  Minister — Eefases  to 
Disclose  hig  Plans — Parliament  Adjourns — League  Agi- 
tation in  the  Eecess — The  Duke  of  Buckingham  Se- 
cedes from  the  Cabinet — Effect  on  the  Country — Eflfect 
on  the  League. 

In  the  midst  of  scarcity  and  business  depression 
the  election  of  1841  was  held.  Though  but  few  Free 
Traders  were  elected,  the  inspiration  of  the  whole 
contest  came  from  the  Anti-Corn-Law  League.  By 
the  moral  strength  of  its  ideas  it  seemed  to  crowd 
all  other  issues  out  of  the  way,  and  forced  a  dig' 
cussion  of  the  Free  Trade  question  at  nearly  every 
polling  place  in  the  Kingdom,  where  there  waa 
any  contest  at  all.  The  Whigs  appeared  before  the 
country  in  a  defensive  and  apologetic  attitude. 
Having  no  beneficent  measures  of  public  policy  to 
their  credit  in  the  late  Parliament,  they  offered 
the  country  a  large  assortment  of  future  statesman- 
ship at  a  heavy  discount  for  another  term  of  power. 
Unfortunately,  the  constituencies  had  not  much 
confidence  in  their  promises  or  in  their  ability  to 
perform  them.     They  had  done  enough  to  alarm 

50 


A    TORY     MINISTRY.  51 

every  "  protected  "  interest,  and  they  had  not  done 
enough  to  win  the  Free  Traders,  nor  even  the 
moderate  reformers,  who,  while  opposed  to  Free 
Trade,  desired  a  reduction  and  a  revision  of  the  tariflf; 
and  who  thought  that  a  liberal  modification  of  the 
Corn-Laws  ought  to  be  granted.  There  was  a  feeling 
abroad  that  the  proposal  of  the  ministers  to  reduce 
the  duties  on  corn  and  sugar,  was  a  measure  of 
expediency  with  no  strong  convictions  behind  it ; 
a  mere  infusion  of  political  starch  to  stiffen  a  limp 
administration. 

The  friends  of  the  government,  however,  used 
the  proposal  as  a  campaign  battle  cry.  They  de- 
clared that  the  fall  of  the  ministry  under  Sir  Robert 
Peel's  "  Want  of  Confidence  "  resolution,  was  due 
to  their  advanced  and  liberal  policy,  in  attempt- 
ing to  remove  some  oppressive  disabilities  from 
trade ;  and  that  they  had  been  borne  down  by  a 
combination  of  class  interests,  united  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  a  hundred  monopolies.  This  claim  to 
a  certain  extent  was  true,  and  it  gave  something 
of  moral  character  to  their  cause,  but  it  availed 
nothing.  The  election  resulted  in  a  surprising 
victory  for  the  Tories.  They  had  a  majority  in 
the  House  of  Commons  of  nearly  a  hundred  over 
all  opposing  elements  combined,  and  on  a  square 
issue  with  the  Free  Traders  they  could  command 
a  majority  of  more  than  three  hundred  and  fifty 
votes.  Among  the  astonishing  results  of  this  elec- 
tion was  the  defeat  of  Lord  Morpeth,  and  Lord 
Milton  for  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire,  and  Lord 


52  HISTORY   OF  FREE  TRADE. 

Howick  was  overthrown  in  the  contest  for  North- 
umberland. Westminster  performed  the  supposed 
impossible  feat  of  electing  a  Tory  over  Sir  De  La- 
cey  Evans ;  Mr.  O'Connell  was  defeated  for  Dub- 
lin, and  even  Lord  John  Russell  himself  had  a 
very  narrow  escape  in  his  contest  for  the  City  of 
London.  In  the  late  Parliament  the  City  of  Lon- 
don was  represented  by  four  Whigs ;  to  the  new 
Parliament  it  elected  two  Tories  and  two  Whigs, 
and  a  Tory  was  at  the  head  of  the  poll.  Lord 
John  Russell,  notwithstanding  his  talents,  and  his 
position  in  the  government,  and  with  all  the  vast 
influence  of  the  Bedford  family  to  help  him,  came 
within  eight  of  defeat  in  a  poll  of  over  twelve 
thousand  votes.  The  Protectionist  victory  was 
complete ;  yet  this  was  the  Parliament  that  was 
destined  within  five  years  to  overthrow  the  Pro- 
tective System,  and  establish  Free  Trade  in  Eng- 
land as  firmly  as  the  British  Islands  are  anchored 
in  the  sea. 

In  the  new  Parliament  was  a  new  man,  a  calico 
printer  from  the  North,  a  moral  and  mental  force  so 
great,  that  he  was  afterwards  regarded  by  all  Eng- 
lishmen as  the  most  important  personage  that  had 
been  seen  in  the  House  of  Commons  since  Oliver 
Cromwell  had  a  seat  there.  His  name  was  Rich- 
ard Cobden.  This  man  had  already  become  the 
electric  principle  of  the  Anti-Corn-Law  League. 
He  was  a  leader  without  selfishness  or  personal 
ambition,  a  guide  whom  all  men  loved  to  follow. 
He  was  a  statesman  by  instinct,  an  organizer  with 


A    TORY     MINISTRY.  5S 

the  genius  of  Napoleon.  He  was  an  orator  of  such 
convincing  powers  that  he  converted  more  men  to 
his  views  by  simply  talking  to  them,  than  any 
other  man  of  his  time,  or  perhaps  of  any  timej 
not  only  tens  of  thousands  of  Manchester  opera- 
tives, but  even  farmers,  who  had  been  persuaded 
that  Free  Trade  would  ruin  them.  Without  any 
special  advantages  of  personal  grace,  although  he 
was  not  deficient  in  the  grace  of  a  perfectly  natu- 
ral and  easy  manner,  and  careless  of  the  arts  of 
rhetoric,  there  was  an  earnest  truthfulness  about 
him  that  made  a  great  impression.  He  was  fluent 
enough,  without  redundancy,  and  his  language 
was  of  the  best  and  easiest  English.  His  voice 
was  pleasant  and  clear,  though  not  loud.  He  had 
a  boundless  store  of  practical  knowledge,  much  of 
which  he  had  picked  up  by  personal  observation 
in  the  United  States,  and  on  the  continent  of  Eu- 
rope. No  matter  how  extravagant  his  assertions 
appeared  to  be,  he  had  always  the  facts  at  hand  to 
verify  them.  He  grouped  them  together  with 
great  skill,  and  moulded  them  into  irresistible  argu- 
ments. He  fastened  responsibility  upon  his  adver- 
saries with  terrible  emphasis.  In  playful  fancy, 
and  in  the  power  of  enforcing  his  points  l)y  famil- 
iar illustrations  drawn  from  every  day  life,  he  re- 
sembled Abraham  Lincoln — or  perhaps  it  would 
be  more  correct  to  say  that  Lincoln  resembled  him. 
He  resembled  him  in  the  abundance  of  his  humor, 
and  the  quaint  sharpness  of  his  satire.  Above  all 
things  there  was  a  candor  and  sincerity  about  him 


54  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

that  went  far  towards  persuading  men  that  he  was 
right.  He  was  pre-eminent  in  the  faculty  of  con- 
centrating the  main  argument  of  a  whole  debate 
into  a  few  sentences.  A  deep  love  of  humanity 
pervaded  all  he  wrote,  and  all  he  said.  His  life 
was  pure,  his  character  without  reproach.  With 
the  factory  dust  upon  him,  he  faced  the  patrician 
monopolists  on  the  Tory  benches  with  a  courage 
as  high  as  that  of  the  purest  Norman  of  them  all. 
He  was  as  effective  inside  the  House  of  Commons 
as  out  of  it,  and  it  is  certain  that  he  converted  Sir 
Robert  Peel,  the  leader  of  the  Protectionist  party, 
to  a  belief  not  only  in  the  expediency  of  Free 
Trade,  but  in  the  wisdom  and  in  the  justice  of  it. 
In  fact  it  boded  ill  to  the  Tories  when  they  saw 
that  their  chief  permitted  his  face  to  show  how  he 
was  hurt  by  the  shafts  of  Cobden,  and  it  boded 
still  farther  mischief  to  them  when  they  noticed 
how  he  sat  spell  bound  listening  to  every  word 
that  fell  from  his  enemy.  We  know  now  that  Peel 
at  last  came  completely  under  the  fascination  of 
Cobden 's  intellect,  and  permitted  that  intellect  to 
dominate  his  own. 

The  ministerial  defeats  in  the  counties  were  not 
unexpected,  but  the  Tory  gains  in  the  towns  and 
cities  were  a  great  surprise.  They  proved  that  the 
cry  of  "  cheap  bread  "  had  been  successfully  met 
by  the  counter  cry  of"  low  wages."  The  benighted 
superstition  that  cheap  bread  made  low  wages, 
was  entertained  not  only  by  the  Tory  monopolists 
who  had  an  object  in  proclaiming  it,  but  by  the 


A    TORY     MINISTRY.  56 

hungry  workingmen  themselves,  whose  interests 
were  all  in  the  opposite  direction.    Worse  than        j    -^ 
that,  men  claiming  to  be  statesmen  conceded  the 
doctrine  even  when  advocating  a  reduction  of  the 
import  duties  on  grain. 

Notwithstanding  the  adverse  verdict  of  the  peo- 
ple at  the  polls,  the  Whigs  declined  to  surrender 
office  until  the  meeting  of  the  new  Parliament. 
If  they  must  go  out  they  would  be  kicked  out  in 
a  regular  and  constitutional  way,  and  kicked  out 
they  were  accordingly.  When  Parliament  met, 
the  Tories  offered  in  both  Houses  an  amendment 
to  the  address  in  answer  to  the  speech  from  the 
throne,  and  the  debate  upon  it  was  very  much  like 
a  repetition  of  that  on  the  "  want  of  confidence  " 
resolution  in  May.  Earl  Spencer,  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  moved  the  address  in  a  good  speech  advo- 
cating a  removal  of  the  oppressive  restrictions  on 
the  importation  of  corn.  The  address  was  sec- 
onded by  the  Marquis  of  Clanricarde,  who,  while 
defending  the  government  programme,  was  weak 
enough  to  admit  that  "  if  corn  became  cheaper, 
wages  would  undoubtedly  fall,"  but,  he  said,  "  if 
the  workman  for  a  certain  sum  was  able  to  obtain 
a  larger  supply  of  food  and  clothing  than  he  could 
before,  then  his  condition  would  undoubtedly  be 
bettered.  And  Lord  Bruce,  who  seconded  the 
amendment  to  the  address  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, declared,  "  That  for  his  own  part  he  would 
consent  to  no  plan  of  Free  Trade,  because  it  would 
throw  vast  numbers  of  his  fellow  subjects  out  of 


56  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

employ."  The  above  two  specimens  will  show  how 
far  Whig  and  Tory  statesmen  in  England  had  pro- 
gressed in  the  study  of  political  economy  in  the  year 
1841.  They  stood  then,  just  where  Democratic  and 
Republican  statesmen  in  America  stand  now,  vic- 
tims of  the  same  sophistries  and  the  same  delusions. 
Of  course  there  was  a  man  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons ready  to  lay  the  whole  blame  for  everything 
on  "  machinery."  Mr.  Baillie  thought  that  the  dis- 
tress of  the  people  was  all  owing  to  the  invention 
of  machinery,  and  except  for  that  everybody  would 
be  prosperous  and  happy. 

In  this  debate  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  foreboded  the  ruin  of  agriculture. 
He  "  earnestly  recommended  their  Lordships  not 
to  lend  themselves  to  the  destruction  of  our  native 
cultivation.  Its  encouragement  was  of  the  utmost 
and  deepest  importance  to  all  classes.  He  earn- 
estly begged  of  them  not  to  consent  to  any  meas- 
ure which  would  injure  the  cultivation  of  their 
own  soil."  While  the  Duke  of  Wellington  was 
talking  so  feebly  as  that  in  the  House  of  Lords,  Mr. 
O'Connell  was  talking  thus  wisely  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  He  said,  "  The  present  law  is  doubly 
iniquitous,  as  it  raises  prices  and  at  the  same  time 
diminishes  the  vent  for  manufactures.  He  was 
weary  of  experiments  on  the  poor.  He  heard  of 
a  man  who  complained  that  nothing  could  fatten 
his  horse,  although  he  had  tried  tobacco,  and 
twenty  other  things.  A  friend  asked  him  did  you 
ever  try  oats  ?     He  wished  the  legislature  would 


A    TOBY     MINISTRY.  57 

try  the  people  with  bread.  He  would  only  agree 
to  Lord  John  Russell's  plan  as  an  installment  of 
justice,  until  he  could  get  rid  of  Protection  alto- 
gether." The  Protective  System  of  the  United 
States  performs  the  same  double  iniquity  here  that 
the  English  system  did  there  forty-three  years  ago. 
It  raises  prices,  and  at  the  same  time  diminishes  the 
vent  for  manufactures. 

It  was  in  the  course  of  this  debate  that  Mr. 
Cobden  spoke  for  the  first  time  in  Parliament. 
He  exposed  the  sufferings  of  the  people  to  the 
gaze  of  the  Senate,  and  charged  against  the  Pro- 
tective System  the  prostration  of  English  industry. 
He  lifted  the  question  clear  out  of  the  realm  of 
office-hunting  intrigue,  far  above  the  wretched 
expedients  of  factionism  and  party.  He  placed 
it  on  the  high  plane  of  moral  science,  and  gave 
notice  to  both  Whigs  and  Tories  that  the  question 
of  the  Corn- Laws  must  be  met,  and  that  a  guilty 
responsibility  should  be  laid  on  those  who  taxed 
the  food  of  the  people.  He  condensed  the  whole 
argument  of  the  debate  into  a  couple  of  sentences 
that  fell  upon  Peel  like  the  ilash  of  light  that  smote 
Paul  on  the  way  to  Damascus.  One  was  this: 
Mr.  Cobden  contended  that  the  Protective  duty 
upon  foreign  grain  was  an  unequal  tax  upon  the 
subsistence  of  honest,  struggling  working  people, 
and  that  it  pressed  upon  them  in  an  infinitely 
heavier  proportion  than  upon  the  rich,  for,  said 
he,  "  the  family  of  a  man  worth  £20,000  a  year, 
scarcely  consumes  more  bread  than  the  family  of 


58  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

the  laborer."  The  injustice  of  the  tax  had  never 
been  shown  so  plainly  in  the  House  of  Commons 
before.  The  comparison,  although  stated  in  few 
words,  revealed  at  a  glance  how  impossible  it  was 
for  the  poor  man  to  evade  the  tax,  for  he  must 
have  bread  for  his  family,  while  the  family  of  the 
rich  man  could  easily  escape  the  tax  by  living  on 
daintier  food.  Peel  was  a  man  of  very  large  pri- 
vate fortune,  and  such  illustrations  disturbed  him, 
for  his  sensibilities  were  kindly,  and  his  instincts 
just.  The  other  sentence  was  the  startling  propo- 
sition that  the  man  who  is  not  allowed  to  spend 
his  wages  to  the  best  advantage  is  not  free.  Mr. 
Cobden  said,  "  If  it  is  criminal  to  steal  a  man 
and  make  him  work  for  nothing,  it  was  equally 
criminal  to  steal  from  a  free  man  the  fair  reward 
of  his  labor."  He  disposed  of  the  "cheap  bread 
and  low  wages  "  doctrine  by  saying  that  the  in- 
crease of  trade  which  must  follow  from  a  repeal  of 
the  Corn-Laws  would  increase  the  demand  for  la- 
bor, and  with  that  increased  demand  would  come 
an  increase  of  wages.  There  were  some  who 
sneered  at  this  unpleasant  person,  but  it  is  certain 
that  the  country  gentlemen  would  have  spent  a 
more  agreeable  Christmas  if  he  had  not  spoken 
at  all. 

When  the  debate  ended,  a  division  was  had  and 
there  appeared  to  be,  for  the  address  269,  for  the 
amendment  360,  majority  against  the  government 
91.  Then  the  Whigs  resigned.  They  had  been 
constitutionally  kicked  out  as  they  had  resolved  to 


A    TORY     MINISTRY.  59 

be.  Sir  Robert  Peel  came  into  power  with  an  obe- 
dient and  well  disciplined  majority  behind  him, 
sufficient  to  carry  every  measure  proposed  by  min- 
isters. He  formed  a  strong  Cabinet  including 
among  its  members  Lord  Stanley,  Sir  James  Gra- 
ham, and  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  while  in  subor- 
dinate positions  of  importance  were  such  men  as 
Sidney  Herbert,  Lord  Lincoln,  and  Mr.  Glad- 
stone. 

In  spite  of  all  attempts  to  draw  him  out  during 
the  first  session  of  the  new  Parliament,  Sir  Robert 
Peel  refused  to  disclose  the  future  policy  of  his 
government.  He  demanded  time  in  which  to  form 
his  plans.  This  was  bitterly  condemned  by  the 
Whigs,  who  insisted  that  he  should  propose  his 
measures  at  once.  October  came,  and  still  his 
plans  were  wrapped  in  mystery.  Subsequent 
events  convince  us  that  he  did  not  know  them 
himself.  Parhament  adjourned  until  February, 
and  he  took  the  intervening  months  to  consider 
what  was  best  to  do.  His  compact  majority  of 
ninety-one,  rendered  him  quite  independent  of  all 
minor  factions  within  the  party  like  those  that 
had  embarrassed  the  Whigs.  Since  the  days  of 
William  Pitt,  no  Prime  Minister  had  rested  so 
absolutely  secure  on  the  support  of  such  a  well 
organized  and  coherent  party. 

Peel  soon  found  that  a  statesman  in  power  is  a 
different  personage  from  a  politician  on  the  oppo- 
sition benches.  In  the  latter  case  he  has  a  jaunty 
time  of  it.  Without  any  responsibility  or  care,  he 


60  HISTORY   OF  FREE   TRADE. 

•can  criticize  the  other  side,  and  show  his  oppo- 
nents what  they  ought  to  do.  In  the  other  case 
he  carries  on  his  shoulders  the  welfare  of  a  people, 
and  the  burthen  is  heavy  to  a  man  ambitious  of 
lasting  fame,  and  who  really  wishes  to  do  right. 
That  Peel  desired  the  welfare  of  his  country  is  not 
to  be  denied,  and  when  he  began  to  reflect  on  the 
tremendous  responsibility  that  had  fallen  upon 
him  he  saw  that  the  tariff  and  the  Corn-Laws  in 
their  present  shape  could  not  wisely  or  justly  be 
maintained,  and  that  some  change  was  indispens- 
able. Then  he  realized  how  weak  and  vain  is  the 
boasting  of  the  strongest  man.  In  the  debate  on 
the  "  want  of  confidence "  resolution  in  May  he 
had  proudly  enquired,  "  Who  in  this  House  has 
more  steadily  stood  forward  in  defense  of  the  ex- 
isting Corn-Laws  than  I  have  done,"  and  during 
the  late  canvass,  he  had  said  to  the  electors  of  Tam- 
worth,  *'  Who  pay  the  highway  rates?  Who  pay 
the  church  rates?  Who  pay  the  poor  rates? 
Who  pay  the  tithes?  I  say  perhaps  not  alto- 
gether, but  chiefly  the  landed  occupiers  of  this 
country.  If  corn  be  the  product  of  their  land, 
and  subject  to  these  burdens,  it  surely  would  not 
be  just  to  the  land  of  this  country  which  bears 
them  all  to  admit  it  at  a  low  rate  of  duty."  "  I 
have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  existing  sys- 
tem should  not  be  altered,  and  that  our  aim  ought 
to  be  to  render  ourselves  independent  of  foreign 
supply:"  the  ready  jargon  which  Protectionists 
have  used  in  all  countries,  and  in  every  age.    His 


A    TORY     MINISTRY.  61 

boastings  and  his  promises  could  not  endure  the 
strain  of  his  new  responsibility.  His  conscience 
told  him  that  he  must  either  resign  office  or  amend 
the  law.    He  resolved  to  amend  the  law. 

During  the  recess  the  League  was  hard  at  work. 
The  Free  Trade  agitation  was  extended  to  Ireland 
and  Scotland.  Newspapers  were  started,  and  vast 
numbers  of  pamphlets  were  distributed  in  every 
direction.  Heaps  ofinformation  concerning  every 
trade  and  occupation  in  the  Kingdom  were  piled 
up  for  use  in  the  next  Parliament.  Meanwhile, 
there  was  great  anxiety  throughout  the  country  as 
to  the  intentions  of  the  Government.  Cabinet 
meetings  were  held,  but  not  a  word  leaked  out  as 
to  their  pioceedings.  The  two  or  three  speeches 
made  by  Cobden  at  the  short  session  had  sunk 
deep  into  the  mind  of  Peel.  The  proof  of  it  is  clear. 
During  the  canvass  in  the  summer  he  had  declared 
that  "  the  existing  system  should  not  be  altered," 
in  the  winter  he  had  changed  his  mind.  In  that 
interval  he  had  heard  Cobden. 

A  trifling  incident  which  occurred  just  before 
the  opening  of  Parliament  alarmed  the  monopo- 
lists, and  convinced  the  country  that  the  League 
was  actually  making  discord  in  the  Tory  Cabinet 
itself.  The  incident  was  this :  The  Toryist  Tory 
in  all  England  was  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  and 
he  was  in  tlie  Cabinet.  With  the  blood  of  Henry 
Plantagenet  in  his  veins,  and  the  lordship  of  thou- 
sands of  broad  acres  in  his  possession,  he  was  a 
stately  specimen  of  that  liaughty  Norman  aristoc- 


62  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

racy  which  for  nearly  eight  hundred  years  had 
held  the  Saxon  in  a  state  of  serfdom,  and  his  lands 
by  right  of  conquest.  So  long  as  he  was  in  the 
Cabinet  it  was  certain  that  modern  civilization 
would  be  excluded  from  its  councils;  that  no 
such  vulgar  theme  as  "economics"  would  be 
debated  at  its  meetings.  So  long  as  he  was  in 
the  Cabinet  monopoly  might  sleep  in  peace;  the 
feudal  system  would  stand  firm,  grim  and  defiant 
as  the  Tower  of  London  itself.  One  morning  it 
was  whispered  at  the  Carlton  Club  that  the  Duke 
of  Buckingham  had  resigned,  and  the  whisper  was 
correct.  Then  the  people  knew  that  some  changes 
in  the  Corn-Laws  had  been  determined  on.  In- 
spirited by  the  news  the  League  worked  harder 
than  before. 


CHAPTER  rV. 

THE    NEW    TARIFF. 

Condition  of  the  Country  at  the  Beginning  of  1842 — The 
Opening  of  Parliament — Sir  Kobert  Peel's  Plans — Criti- 
cised by  Cobden — Dissatisfaction  in  the  North— The 
Debate  on  the  Government  Proposals — Parallel  Between 
the  Arguments  of  Peel  in  1842,  and  that  of  the  American 
Protectionists  in  1884 — The  Home  Market — Mutual 
Protection — Lord  John  Russell's  Amendment  —  Lord 
Palmerston's  Argument — Cheap  Food  and  Low  Wages. 

The  year  1842  opened  gloomily.  There  was 
great  distress  throughout  the  country,  and  there 
was  a  deficit  in  the  revenue  of  more  than  twelve 
million  dollars.  When  Parliament  met  in  Feb- 
ruary, there  was  great  anxiety  to  know  what 
the  government  intended  to  do.  To  the  con- 
sternation of  the  monopolists.  Sir  Robert  Peel 
announced  that  it  was  his  intention  to  meet  the 
deficit  by  the  imposition  of  an  income  tax ;  that 
although  he  should  maintain  the  "  sliding  scale," 
the  duties  on  corn  and  provisions  would  be  re- 
duced. He  alrio  said  that  it  was  the  intention  of 
the  government  to  revise  the  tariff",  so  as  to  deprive 
it  of  its  prohibitory  features,  and  to  lower  the 
duties  on  about  seven  hundred  and  fifty  articles. 
This  from  a  Protectionist  Tory  ministry  was  a 
great  advance,  and  showed  that  small  as  was  the 
number  of  Free  Traders  in  the  House  of  Commons, 

63 


64  HISTORY   OF  FREE   TRADE. 

the  ideas  of  the  League  had  actually  affected  the 
policy  of  the  government. 

The  natural  result  of  half-way  measures  fol- 
lowed. The  government  was  assailed  by  both 
sides ;  by  the  Protectionists  for  yielding  anything 
to  the  League,  and  by  the  Free  Traders  for  not 
yielding  more.  Cobden  was  unsparing  and  fierce 
in  his  denunciations;  immense  meetings  were 
held  in  the  North,  and  in  all  the  manufacturing 
country,  at  which  resolutions  were  passed  savagely 
condemning  the  ministry.  At  some  of  these 
meetings  Sir  Robert  Peel  was  burned  in  effigy,  a 
barbarous  insult  which  deeply  wounded  him,  and 
of  which  he  rightfully  complained.  Cobden  and 
the  leaders  of  the  League  were  not  responsible  for 
those  excesses  any  further  than  all  popular  leaders 
are  responsible  for  the  mad  acts  of  their  followers 
who  rush  past  them  and  out  of  their  control. 
The  Chartist  agitation  had  produced  a  good  deal 
of  seditious  talk,  and  some  rioting.  Ireland  was 
discontented  and  miserable.  In  Peel's  own  lan- 
guage it  was  the  "  chief  difficulty  "  of  his  govern- 
ment. Altogether  there  was  immense  respon- 
sibility upon  the  ministers,  and  the  business  of 
the  country  required  for  its  safe  management  the 
highest  qualities  of  statesmanship. 

The  debate  of  1842  is  a  great  event  in  the 
political  history  of  England.  For  the  first  time 
in  Parliament  the  revenue  and  economic  system 
of  the  country  was  subjected  to  the  test  of  scientific 
analysis,  by  minds  trained  not  only  in  the  schools^ 


THE    NEW    TARIFF.  65 

but  in  trade,  commerce,  manufactures,  agriculture, 
and  in  all  the  practical  industries  by  which  men 
earn  their  own  living.  In  this  debate  the  men 
whose  living  was  earned  by  others  were  at  a 
humiliating  disadvantage.  Norman  nobles,  whose 
fathers  had  fought  at  Hastings,  and  Agincourt, 
and  Cressy,  were  laughed  at  for  their  ignorance 
by  smoky  people  from  Lancashire  and  Derby. 
Heretofore,  debates  of  this  character  were  the  mere 
competition  of  class  interests  seeking  to  obtain 
the  advantage  of  one  another  in  the  "  Protective  " 
legislation  of  the  country.  Now,  the  whole  theory 
and  practice  of  class  legislation  were  placed  on 
trial,  with  the  entire  people  of  England  as  an  in- 
terested audience.  That  the  true  principles  of 
political  economy  had  been  proclaimed  in  Parlia- 
ment hundreds  of  times  before  the  debate  of  1842, 
is  true,  but  they  were  given  and  accepted  as  ab- 
stractipns  only ;  and  as  they  were  conceded  to 
have  no  practical  bearing,  they  fell  like  good  seed 
upon  stony  ground.  They  failed  to  obtain  the 
notice  of  the  people.  It  was  not  so  now.  The 
League  had  taken  care  to  wake  up  the  people,  and 
compel  them  to  listen  to  the  debate. 

In  February,  1842,  Parliament  was  opened  by 
the  Queen  in  person.  She  was  then  in  the  pride 
and  bloom  of  young  motherhood.  She  looked 
radiant  and  joyful,  for  her  married  life  was  hap^^y. 
Additional  grandeur  was  given  to  the  occasion  by 
the  attendance  of  the  King  of  Prussia,  who  had 
come  over  to  attend  the  christening  of  the  infant 

E 


66  HISTORY   OF   FREE  TRADE. 

Prince  of  Wales.  Immense  crowds  lined  the 
route  of  the  procession,  and  they  generously 
cheered  the  Queen.  A  cloud  of  anxiety  passed 
over  her  face  as  she  heard  mingled  with  the  ac- 
clamations of  the  people  the  ominous  cries  of 
"  Cheap  Labor,"  "  Free  Trade,"  "  No  Corn  Laws." 
The  first  official  knowledge  obtained  by  the  people 
that  any  change  in  the  Corn-Laws  had  been  re- 
solved on  by  the  government,  was  given  in  the 
following  paragraph  in  the  speech  from  the  throne, 
"  I  recommend  also  to  your  consideration  the 
state  of  the  laws  which  affect  the  importation  of 
corn."  It  was  only  last  May  that  Lord  John 
Russell  had  said  those  very  words  to  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  for  saying^them  the  Whig  ministry 
was  overthrown  in  Parliament,  and  the  Whig 
party  defeated  at  the  polls.  The  advance  made 
in  those  few  months  was  an  accurate  measure  of 
the  power  of  the  League. 

On  the  9th  of  February,  Sir  Robert  Peel  moved 
that  the  House  go  into  Committee  of  the  whole 
to  consider  the  duties  on  corn.  He  introduced 
his  programme  in  a  very  ingenious  and  com- 
prehensive speech ;  a  speech  that  showed  he  was 
complete  master  of  the  subject,  and  familiar  with 
all  the  details  of  England's  commercial  and  in- 
dustrial condition.  He  admitted  the  distress  of 
the  people,  but  he  didn't  believe  that  the  Corn- 
Laws  were  responsible  for  it.  He  found  reasons 
for  it  in  all  the  corners  of  the  earth,  from  China  to 
America.    He  was  weak  enough  to  attribute  some 


THB  NEW    TARIFF.  67 

of  it  to  the  displacement  of  hand-labor  by  steam 
power,  to  over-investment  of  borrowed  capital, 
and  to  alarms  of  war ;  to  everything,  in  fact,  but 
the  Corn- Laws.  Still,  he  proposed  some  amend- 
ment to  those  laws.  He  thought  that  the  "  sliding 
scale  "  could  be  so  amended  that  the  price  of  wheat 
would  not  vary  much  from  somewhere  between 
fifty-four  and  fifty-eight  shillings  a  quarter  (about  a 
dollar  and  seventy-five  cents  a  bushel).  He  con- 
tended that  the  country  should  rely  upon  home  pro- 
duction for  its  food  supply,  and  should  be  willing  to 
pay  an  extra  price  for  it,  because  of  the  advan- 
tage of  being  "  independent  of  foreign  countries." 
In  the  course  of  his  argument  Sir  Robert  said, 
"  A  comparison  is  made  between  the  dearness  of 
food  in  England  and  its  cheapness  in  other 
countries ;  but  that  led  to  a  fallacious  conclusion. 
The  true  question  is,  not  what  is  the  price  of 
bread?  but  what  command  the  laboring  classes 
have  over  bread?  and  what  command  they  have 
over  the  enjoyments  of  life  ?  "  There  was  much 
truth  in  this,  but  it  was  stated  so  as  to  evade  the 
conditions  of  Cobden's  axiom  that  high  prices 
resulting  from  prosperity  might  be  permanent, 
because  founded  on  public  riches,  whereas  high 
prices  resulting  from  scarcity  must  ever  be  pre- 
carious, because  the  resultant  poverty  rendered 
customers  powerless  to  buy,  thus  dragging  prices 
down  often  to  the  actual  loss  of  the  holders  of  the 
goods.  A  restricted  market  lowered  wages  by 
lessening  the  demand  for  goods,  and  low  wages 


68  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

restricted  the  command  of  the  workingman  over 
brea-.l.  Sir  Robert  Peel  saw  this  afterwards,  and 
acknowledged  it ;  but  he  did  not  see  it  then,  and 
the  American  economists  do  not  see  it  yet.  They 
stiU  persist  in  raising  prices  by  making  scarcity, 
and  they  dread  "  a  flood  of  cheap  goods "  as  a 
calamity  to  be  provided  against  by  law.  In  the 
language  of  Mr.  O'Connell,  they  persist  by  a  re- 
strictive policy  in  closing  the  "  vent  for  manufac- 
tures;" gradually  poverty  steals  over  large 
numbers  of  the  people,  and  at  last  there  is  a  glut 
in  the  market,  because  customers  are  no  longer 
able  to  buy.  Up  goes  the  cry  of  "  over-produc- 
tion," and  a  "  flood  of  cheap  goods  "  is  poured 
out  of  our  own  factories  at  the  absolute  loss  of  the 
men  who  have  produced  them.  So  precarious  is 
American  business  under  this  bad  system  that  a 
horde  of  people  have  grown  up  who  actually 
make  their  living  by  speculating  on  its  uncer- 
tainties, and  the  "  operations  "  of  our  domestic 
commerce  have  largely  degenerated  into  gambling. 
Another  parallel  between  the  argument  of  Sir 
Robert  Peel  on  that  occasion,  and  the  argument 
of  the  American  Protectionists  of  our  own  day,  is 
the  boast  that  whatever  comforts  the  people  enjoy 
over  those  of  other  nations  is  due  to  the  Protective 
System.  He  said  that  the  people  of  England  each 
consumed  fifty  pounds  of  meat  annually,  sugar 
seventeen  pounds  per  head,  wheat  sixteen  bushels 
each ;  and  he  easily  showed  that  no  other  people  on 
the  Continent  of  Europe  consumed  so  much  of  those 


THE     NEW    TARIFF.  69 

articles.  Hence  the  Protective  System  increased 
the  comforts  of  the  people  of  England.  It  was 
diflBcult  to  answer  this  argument,  because  it  was 
supported  by  tangible  evidence,  the  meat  and 
sugar  and  corn.  As  there  was  no  Free  Trade  ex- 
perience to  contradict  it,  the  refutation  of  it  could 
be  nothing  better  than  a  speculation  and  a  hope. 
It  was  easy  enough  for  the  Free  Traders  to  assert 
that  under  this  system  those  comforts  would  be 
multiplied,  but  they  had  no  proof  of  it,  for  their 
system  had  never  been  tried.  They  have  the 
proof  of  it  now.  In  1842  Sir  Robert  Peel  boasted 
that  under  the  beneficent  operation  of  the  Pro- 
tective System  the  English  people  were  able  to 
enjoy  in  one  year  the  luxury  of  seventeen  pounds 
of  sugar  each.  In  1881,  after  thirty-five  years'  ex- 
periment of  the  Free  Trade  policy,  the  consump- 
tion of  sugar  in  England  amounted  to  fifty-eight 
pounds  each  for  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in 
the  Kingdom.  Other  comforts  were  multiplied  in 
the  same  proportion.  The  bountiful  resources  of 
the  United  States,  which  are  able  to  defy  the  ill- 
treatment  of  the  Protective  System,  are  called  up 
as  witnesses  by  the  American  Protectionists  in 
favor  of  that  mischievous  policy  which  is  crippling 
them  to  the  full  extent  of  its  power,  as  the  same 
policy  crippled  for  centuries  tlie  magnificent  re- 
sources of  Great  Britain.  A  Free  Trade  policy 
would  increase  the  comforts  and  prosperity  of  the 
people  here  as  it  did  in  England. 

Although  he  was  then  making  concessions  to 


70  HISTORY   OF  FREE   TRADE. 

the  contrary  principle,  Sir  Robert  Peel  maintained 
as  the  American  economists  do  now  that  the 
"  protection  "  of  one  class  of  the  people  at  the  ex- 
pense of  another  is  to  the  benefit  of  both.  He 
said,  "  It  is  my  firm  belief  that  the  total  repeal  of 
the  Corn-Laws  would  aggravate  the  manufacturing 
distress,  the  prosperity  of  the  two  classes,  agri- 
culturists and  manufacturers  being  identical." 
He  maintained  that  the  artificial  prosperity  con- 
ferred upon  the  agriculturists  by  the  protective 
duties  which  excluded  foreign  grain,  although 
apparently  at  first  taken  from  the  manufacturers, 
came  back  to  them  again  in  the  creation  of  a  home 
market  for  their  goods,  which  the  farmers  were 
thus  enabled  to  buy.  So  the  protective  stimulus 
given  to  manufactures  performed  a  return  miracle 
in  creating  a  "  home  market "  for  grain.  This 
doctrine  is  vigorously  asserted  in  the  United 
States  to-day.  A  similar  juggle  is  performed 
by  Bulwer  in  one  of  his  novels.  A  great  land- 
lord is  making  a  speech  to  his  tenantry,  and  boast- 
ing of  the  generous  manner  in  which  he  spends 
the  rents  which  he  takes  from  them  every  quarter- 
day.  He  builds  here  and  he  improves  there ;  he 
gives  them  employment  at  this  place,  and  their 
sons  good  wages  over  yonder;  he  buys  this  of 
them,  and  that ;  he  entertains  great  company  up 
at  the  hall,  and  scatters  money  about  like  a  king. 
He  concludes  by  saying,  "  So  you  see  that  Vi^hat  I 
take  from  you  with  one  hand  I  bestow  upon  you 
again  with  the  other."    Those  dull  farmers  cannot 


THE     NEW    TARIFF.  71 

see  the  fallacy  in  this  boasting ;  they  cannot  see 
that  all  this  liberal  squandering  comes  out  of  their 
own  hard  labor,  so  they  give  the  enterprising 
landlord  three  rousing  cheers  and  go  home.  In  this 
fashion  a  thousand  industries  in  the  United  States 
engage  in  the  *'  Protection  "  pastime  of  merry-go- 
round,  protecting  everybody  at  everybody's  ex- 
pense, always  getting  back  to  the  place  whence  we 
started,  with  much  loss  from  friction  and  wasted 
power.  Every  man  in  the  game  has  made  some- 
thing off  the  rest,  and  all  are  happy  in  the  delu- 
sion that  nobody  has  lost  anything,  because  each 
has  given  back  to  his  neighbor  with  one  hand 
that  which  he  took  from  him  with  the  other.  No 
account  is  taken  here  of  the  unfortunates  who 
are  not  allowed  to  have  any  part  in  the  game. 

According  to  the  etiquette  of  Parliament,  the 
duty  of  answering  the  Prime  Minister  fell  upon  the 
leader  of  the  opposition,  and  Lord  John  Russell 
rose  to  perform  that  duty.  He  had  very  little  to 
say.  A  Protectionist  himself,  he  did  not  know  how 
much  of  the  ministerial  plan  he  might  dare  to  crit- 
icise, and  no  doubt  he  felt  himself  that  night  en- 
tirely overmatched  by  Peel.  He  stammered  a  few 
sentences  in  condemnation  of  the  "sliding  scale," 
and  sat  down.  But  there  was  a  man  there  who 
was  not  afraid  even  of  the  accomplished  minister. 
That  man  was  Cobden.  He  denounced  the  plan 
of  the  government  as  quite  insufficient  and  unsat- 
isfactory, because  it  did  not  reach  down  and  re- 
move the  real  causes  of  the   people's   poverty. 


72  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

That  kind  of  argument,  though  severe,  could  be 
endured ;  but  when  the  orator  out  of  his  abundant 
knowledge  showed  that  the  Prime  Minister  was  in 
error  as  to  his  facts,  and  in  that  way  toppled  over 
the  stately  frame  work  of  his  reasoning,  the  House 
of  Commons  recognized  at  once  that  the  smoky 
country  had  sent  a  man  to  Parhament,  who  was 
so  thoroughly  informed  as  to  the  agricultural, 
the  manufacturing,  and  the  commercial  condition 
of  England,  that  not  even  Peel,  the  greatest  debater 
there,  could  safely  make  a  statement  on  insufficient 
evidence,  or  even  venture  an  opinion  on  any  doubt- 
ful testimony.  Here  was  a  man  whose  facts  fell 
upon  the  minds  of  his  hearers  with  the  force  of 
the  blows  delivered  by  the  factory  steam  hammer. 
The  oratory  of  the  colleges  retreated  from  a  con- 
test with  the  untutored  eloquence  of  this  new 
member  who  actually  earned  his  own  living.  Sir 
Robert  Peel,  grand,  impassive,  cold,  lost  his  an- 
cient self-command  under  the  oratory  of  Cobden, 
and  allowed  his  face  to  betray  the  emotions  that 
stirred  his  conscience  and  his  intellect.  Among 
other  things  Mr.  Cobden  said,  "  The  present  pro- 
posal is  an  insult  to  the  sufferings  of  the  people, 
but  I  have  not  expected  anything  better.  I  do  not 
expect  to  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  nor  figs  of  this- 
tles. This  policy  towards  the  people  of  England 
would  end  at  no  remote  period  in  the  utter  destruc- 
tion of  every  interest  in  the  country." 

Sir  Robert  Peel  pleaded  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions in  favor  of  the  Protective  System,  just  as  the 


THE    NEW    TARIFF.  73 

American  Protectionists  do  to-day.  A  long  pos- 
session of  unjust  privileges  had  ripened  into  a  good 
title.  Replying  to  Mr.  Roebuck  who  had  called 
upon  the  government  to  establish  their  policy  on 
broad  and  enlightened  principles  the  Prime  Minis- 
ter said, "  It's  easy  enough  to  say  apply  great  princi- 
ples, but  I  find  that  mighty  interests  have  grown 
up  under  this  present  law,  and  in  full  dependence 
on  its  faith.  If  you  disregard  those  pecuniary  and 
social  interests  which  have  grown  up  under  that 
protection  which  has  long  been  continued  by  law, 
then  a  sense  of  injustice  will  be  aroused  that  will 
redound  against  your  scheme  of  improvement,  how- 
ever conformable  it  may  be  to  rigid  principles." 

During  the  debate  Lord  John  Russell  intro- 
duced a  resolution  condemning  the  "  sliding  scale." 
This  he  offered  as  an  amendment  to  Peel's  motion 
to  go  into  committee.  In  support  of  the  amend- 
ment Lord  Palmerston  said,  "Why  should  the 
agriculturists  be  secured  against  the  contingen- 
cies of  the  season,  when  such  insurance  is  not  at- 
tempted in  any  other  trade?"  And  speaking  of 
the  benefits  of  Free  Trade,  he  said,  "  It  is  that  man 
may  be  dependent  upon  man.  It  is  that  the  ex- 
change of  commodities  may  be  accompanied  by 
the  diffusion  of  knowledge — by  the  interchange  of 
mutual  benefits  engendering  mutual  kind  feelings 
— multiplying  and  confirming  friendly  relations. 
It  is  that  commerce  may  freely  go  forth  leading 
civilization  with  one  hand  and  peace  with  the  other, 
to  render  mankind  happier,  wiser,  and  better. 


74  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

Sir,  this  is  the  dispensation  of  Providence,  this  is 
the  decree  of  that  power  which  created  and  dis- 
posed the  universe.  But  in  the  face  of  it,  with 
arrogant  presumptuous  folly  the  dealers  in  restrict- 
ive duties  fly,  fettering  the  inborn  energies  of  man, 
and  setting  up  their  miserable  legislation  instead 
of  the  great  standing  laws  of  nature."  This  was 
the  lofty  eloquence  of  a  politician  out  of  ofl&ce. 
For  many  years  Lord  Palmerston  had  been  a  Cab- 
inet Minister,  and  had  never  once  attempted  to 
apply  those  beautiful  principles.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  he  had  voted  two  years  before  against  allow- 
ing the  Manchester  petitioners  to  be  heard  at  the  bar 
of  the  House.  And  what  is  still  more  remarkable, 
he  was  not  ready  to  reduce  those  lovely  sentiments 
to  practice  even  at  the  very  moment  he  was  utter- 
ing them.  He  was  a  Free  Trader  in  theory  only, 
but  in  practice  he  was  a  Protectionist  still.  His 
liberal  sentiments  were  nothing  more  than  parts  of 
the  Whig  strategy  of  the  time. 

With  the  exception  of  his  affected  superstitious 
dread  of  "  steam  power  "  which  was  unworthy  of 
him,  it  was  noticed  that  Peel  in  his  great  speech 
had  been  careful  not  to  insult  the  intelligence  of 
his  hearers  by  asserting  the  false  and  flippant 
maxims  which  formed  then,  as  now,  the  stock  in 
trade  of  the  Protectionist  party.  He  scorned  to 
use  the  customary  cant  that  high  prices  of  the  nec- 
essaries of  life  made  wages  higher,  and  therefore 
were  a  benefit  to  the  workingmen.  He  knew  that 
his  speech  was  going  down  to  posterity,  and  he 


THE    NEW    TARIFF.  75 

preferred  that  it  should  not  be  disfigured  by  such 
fallacies.  As  The  Edinburgh  Review  said  at  the 
time,  he  left  the  utterance  of  these  absurdities  to 
his  subordinates.  With  what  inward  scorn  he 
must  have  heard  Sir  Edward  Knatchbull,  a  mem- 
ber of  his  own  Cabinet,  declare,  amidst  uproarious 
ridicule,  that  "  The  duty  on  corn  should  be  calcu- 
lated in  such  a  manner  as  to  return  to  the  landed 
intert«st  full  security  for  their  property,  and  for  the 
station  in  the  country  which  they  had  hitherto 
held."  No  matter  how  biting  the  hunger  of  the 
industrious  poor  might  be,  the  price  of  bread 
must  be  kept  so  high  that  the  idle,  fox-hunting, 
horse-racing  aristocracy  might  still  riot  in  profli- 
gate extravagance. 

The  progress  of  this  instructive  debate  proved 
how  true  it  is  that  "  fools  rush  in  where  angels 
fear  to  tread."  "  Peart  and  chipper  "  young  states- 
men on  the  Tory  side  hurled  right  in  the  face  of 
Cobden  Protectionist  maxims  that  Peel  would  have 
been  afraid  to  utter.  One  of  the  Prime  Minister's 
young  statesmen  was  the  Marquis  of  Granby,  a 
coming  duke,  who  knew  as  much  about  political 
economy  as  the  wooden  effigy  of  his  ancestor,  the 
historic  "  Markis  o'  Granby,"  which  swung  from 
the  sign  post  of  the  hospitable  tavern  at  Dorking, 
once  kept  by  Mr.  Tony  Weller.  The  Marquis  told 
the  House  of  Commons  that  the  experience  of  all 
Europe  shows  that  the  certain  consequence  of  mak- 
ing food  cheap  is  to  lower  wages."  Sir  Francis 
Burdott,  the  father  of  Lad}  P)Urdott  Coutts,  a  man 


76  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

who  for  forty  years  had  been  a  radical  reiormer 
and  a  revolutionist,  who  had  once  been  committed 
to  the  Tower  by  the  House  of  Commons,  and  who 
had  joined  the  Tories  in  his  old  age,  declared,  that 
to  the  laboring  classes  the  price  of  corn  did  not 
signify  one  straw."  Lord  Mahon  and  Mr.  Stuart 
Wortley  talked  in  the  same  strain,  and  even  Mr. 
Gladstone  fluently  prattled  about  "  the  fallacy  of 
cheap  bread."  No  wonder  that  Mr.  Cobden  taunted 
the  Tory  members  about  their  ignorance,  declar- 
ing that  no  such  ignorance  could  be  found  among 
any  equal  number  of  workingmen  in  the  North  of 
England.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  the  winding 
up  of  the  debate  showed  a  very  comfortable 
majority  for  the  Tories  of  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
three.  The  numbers  were:  For  going  into 
committee,  349 ;  for  Lord  John  Russell's  amend- 
ment, 226. 


CHAPTER  V. 
THE    HORIZONTAL    PLAN. 

Friendly  Di£feience  Between  "Whigs  and  Tories — Mr.  Vil- 
liers  offers  his  Free  Trade  Resolutions — Debate  Thereon 
— Cobden  —  Macaulay —  Defeat  of  the  Resolution  —  De- 
bate on  the  New  Tariff — Sir  Robert  Peel's  Redaction — 
The  "  Horizontal "  Plan — Raw  Materials — Opposition  of 
the  "  Interests" — Protests  of  Monopoly — Fears  of  Amer- 
ican Invasion — Debate  on  the  Bill  in  the  House  of 
Lords — Machinery — Adjournment  of  Parliament — Party 
-  Gains  and  Losses— Renewed  Activity  of  the  League. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  soon  found  that  this  friendly 
difference  between  the  Tories  and  the  Whigs,  as  to 
which  kind  of  tax-torment  was  the  easier  to  bear, 
a  fixed  duty  or  a  sliding  scale,  while  it  might  be 
of  grave  importance  as  an  office-holding  question 
between  rival  bands  of  Protectionists,  was  of  trifling 
consequence  to  the  small  but  resolute  fragment 
which  had  resolved  that  the  torment  should  alto- 
gether cease.  He  found  that  he  must  now  discuss 
the  question  with  men  of  far  greater  debating 
power  than  the  Whig  party  possessed,  and  that  he 
must  discu3S  it  as  a  principle,  not  an  abstract  i)rin- 
ciple  either,  but  rs  a  practical  principle  bearing 
immediately  and  directly  upon  the  welfare  of  all 
the  men  in  England  who  lived  by  manual  indus- 
try.    Lord  Beaconsfield,  in  his  life  of  Lord  Georg«» 

77 


78  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

Bentinck,  truthfully  describes  the  formidable  en- 
emy that  now  confronted  Peel,  where  he  says, 
"Inferior  in  numbers,  but  superior  in  influence 
from  their  powers  of  debate,  and  their  external 
organization  were  the  members  of  the  confedera- 
tion known  as  the  Anti-Corn-Law  League." 

Peel  had  scarcely  time  to  congratulate  himself 
on  his  victory  over  Lord  John  Russell,  when  on 
the  18th  of  February  he  was  called  to  a  more  se- 
rious conflict.  On  that  evening  Mr.  Villiers 
moved  his  resolution  that  duties  on  grain  should 
altogether  cease.  The  House  of  Commons  looked 
upon  this  as  the  Quixotic  chivalry  of  a  man  who 
could  not  see  that  the  question  had  been  settled 
the  other  night  in  the  defeat  of  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell's amendment.  But  the  question  presented  by 
Mr.  Villiers  was  far  broader  than  that  presented 
by  Lord  John  Russell,  and  it  was  not  at  all 
settled  by  Peel's  recent  victory  over  the  Whigs. 
Like  the  slavery  question  in  our  own  country,  it 
was  destined  never  to  be  settled  until  it  was  set- 
tled right. 

The  resolution  was  debated  for  five  nights,  and 
much  of  the  argument  was  a  repetition  of  what 
had  been  said  before.  The  most  eflective  speech 
was  made  by  Cobden.  He  completely  upset  the 
"cheap  bread  and  low  wages"  fallacy  by  an  object 
lesson  that  every  man  could  read,  the  actual  price 
of  bread  and  the  state  of  wages  then  existing  in 
the  country.  He  contended  that  it  was  a  com- 
plete  delusion   to    suppose    that    the     price    of 


THE    HORIZONTAL    PLAN.  79 

food  regulated  the  price  of  wages.  The  last  three 
years  had  fully  demonstrated  the  folly  of  this 
principle.  Bread  had  not  been  so  high  for  twenty 
years,  while  wages  had  suffered  a  greater  decline 
than  in  any  three  years  before.  He  also  contended 
that  the  price  of  labor  was  cheaper  in  England 
than  on  the  continent  because  of  its  superior  qual- 
ity. With  earnest  emphasis  he  said,  "  Are  you 
prepared  to  carry  out  even-handed  justice  to  the 
people?  If  not,  your  law  will  not  stand,  nay, 
your  House  itself,  if  based  upon  injustice  will  not 
stand." 

It  is  not  surprising  that  common  men  should 
waver  on  great  questions  like  this,  when  the  pow- 
erful mind  of  Thomas  Babington  Macaulay  was 
swayed  by  Cobden  to  the  side  of  Free  Trade,  and. 
by  Peel  to  the  side  of  Protection.  He  saw  on  the 
side  of  justice  a  great  principle  that  ought  to  be 
established,  while  on  the  side  of  charity  he  saw 
injury  to  the  protected  classes,  and  this  persuaded 
him  that  it  ought  not  to  be  established — now.  He 
said  that  lie  wished  a  total  repeal  of  duties,  but 
objected  to  an  immediate  withdrawal  of  Protection. 
He  would  therefore  decline  to  vote.  Peel  taunted 
him  with  cowardice,  and  called  upon  him  to  vote 
on  one  side  or  the  other,  but  he  adhered  to  his 
resolution,  and  did  not  vote.  On  the  frivolous 
question  as  to  the  amount  of  duties  and  how  they 
should  be  levied,  the  Whigs  and  Tories  voted 
against  each  other;  but  when  the  principle  of  Pro- 
tection was  at  stake,  they  voted  on  the  same  side. 


80  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

Eighty-nine  members  followed  Mr.  Villiers  into 
the  lobby,  and  three  hundred  and  ninety-two  fol- 
lowed Peel ;  a  majority  for  the  government  of  303,  in 
a  vote  of  489  members,  leaving  175  who  did  not 
vote  at  all;  and  most  of  those  might  ts  well  be 
added  to  the  government  majority. 

In  the  month  of  May  there  was  a  long  debate 
on  the  New  Tariff.  This  debate  is  a  curiosity  now. 
With  that  speculative  wonder  which  moves  us  as 
we  roam  through  the  great  national  museums  of 
Europe,  and  gaze  on  the  mummies  of  old  Egypt, 
we  wander  through  the  mazes  of  this  debate, 
and  look  upon  the  mummified  theories  of  "  Pro- 
tection." It  is  bard  to  realize  that  only  one 
generation  ago,  English  statesmen  actually  believed 
that  by  making  everything  scarce  and  dear  the 
general  prosperity  was  increased.  It  would  be 
even  laughable  if  the  mischievous  delusion  had 
not  emigrated  to  America,  and  taken  possession  of 
our  statesmen  here,  to  the  serious  injuiy  of  the 
country.  The  old  superstition,  now  obsolete  in 
England,  still  flourishes  in  the  United  States. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  introduced  his  New  Tariff  with 
many  apologies  to  the  Protectionists,  and  assuran- 
ces that  it  would  not  hurt  them  very  much.  Like 
a  mother  giving  medicine  to  her  children,  he  told 
them  it  was  good  for  them,  and  that  if  the  taste 
was  slightly  unpleasant  they  would  be  all  the  bet- 
ter for  it  in  the  end.  When  the  portly  gentlemen 
of  the  "landed  interest,"  complained  that  fat  cat- 
tle and  lean  were  to  bo  admitted  at  the  same  fig- 


THE    HORIZONTAL    PLAN.  81 

ures,  instead  of  being  taxed  according  to  their 
weight,  the  bland  Sir  Robert  told  them  it  was  all 
the  better  for  them,  because,  said  he,  English  gra- 
ziers can  import  lean  cattle  at  a  low  rate  of  duty,  and 
fatten  them  for  market;  and,  as  to  fat  cattle, 
they  wouldn't  be  imported  anyhow.  They  couldn't 
stand  a  sea  voyage.  "  No  fat  ox,"  he  said,  "  could 
stand  a  trip  across  the  Bay  of  Biscay,"  and  as  for 
France,  why,  none  would  come  from  there,  be- 
cause France  herself  was  importing  cattle.  He 
showed  that  none  would  come  from  Belgium,  Hol- 
land, Germany  or  the  Prussian  League ;  and  then 
with  grim  flattery  he  told  them  that  the  English 
beef  was  so  much  better  than  any  other  kind  of 
beef,  that  it  would  always  bring  a  higher  price  in 
the  market.  With  one  side  of  his  mouth  he  was 
telling  the  hungry  people  that  he  was  about  to 
cheapen  beef  by  letting  foreign  cattle  in,  and  with 
the  other,  he  was  quieting  the  Protectionists  with 
a  lot  of  blarney,  and  the  assurance,  that,  although 
he  was  about  to  open  the  gates,  the  lean  cattle 
wouldn't  come  in,  and  the  fat  cattle  couldn't. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  made  his  reductions  of  the  tariff 
on  the  "  horizontal"  plan,  the  only  scientific  way 
in  which  they  could  be  made  a^all.  The  excep- 
tions were  in  the  case  of  some  «ew  materials  of 
manufactures,  and  these  he  put  upon  the  free  list. 
This  plan  was  imitated  l)y  Mr.  Morrison  in  our 
Congress  last  spring,  and  was  made  the  theme  of 
much  sardonic  ridicule  by  the  Protectionists 
throughout  the  country.     In  defense  of  the  "  hor- 

F 


82  HISTORY   OF  FREE   TRADE. 

izontal "  plan  Sir  Robert  Peel  said,  "  The  Govern- 
ment has  made  its  reduction  on  a  great  variety  of 
articles,  so  as  to  give  to  almost  every  one  of  those 
classes  which  might  suflFer  from  some  one  or  more 
of  the  reductions,  a  compensation  upon  others." 
This  reason  was  wise  in  the  experiment,  and  vindi- 
cated by  the  result.  When  Mr.  Morrison  offered 
the  same  reasons  for  a  like  policy,  he  was  laughed 
at,  but  they  will  yet  be  justified  here  as  they  have 
been  justified  in  Europe. 

In  removing  the  protective  duty  from  raw  mate- 
rials, Sir  Robert  said  that  he  did  so  to  protect  the 
mechanic  and  the  manufacturer.  Referring  to  the 
protective  duty  on  timber,  he  said  that  it  had 
greatly  discouraged  the  industry  of  cabinet  mak- 
ers, and  all  workers  in  wood.  He  spoke  the  same 
way  about  the  high  protective  duties  on  foreign 
ores.  He  reduced  the  duties  on  whale  oils,  he 
said,  because  they  were  cheaper  in  the  United 
States  than  in  England,  and  by  reason  of  that 
cheapness  the  United  States  was  successfully  com- 
peting with  England  in  foreign  markets  "in  all 
manufactures  extensively  consuming  this  article." 
He  reminded  the  House  of  Mr.  Deacon  Hume's 
dictum  that "  this  country  having  plenty  of  untaxed 
iron,  and  untaxed  coal,  wanted  only  plenty  of  un- 
taxed wood  to  give  employment  to  her  industries." 
The  very  echo  of  those  words  so  applicable  to  our 
country,  rung  through  the  American  Congress  in 
1884,  only  to  be  ridiculed  and  condemned.  The 
cast  off  rags  of  "  Protection  "  which  Sir  Robert  Peel 


THE    HORIZONTAL    PLAN.  83 

threw  away  in  1842  and  1846  are  proudly  worn  J 
by  our  statesmen  in  Washington  to-day.  In  the 
course  of  his  remarks  Sir  Robert  referred  to  the 
tenacity  with  which  men  clung  to  their  own  spec- 
ial privileges  while  generally  sacrificing  those  of 
their  neighbors  to  the  common  good.  In  the  New 
Tariff  the  duty  on  herrings  was  reduced  fifty  per 
cent.,  and  he  read  a  letter  to  the  House  which  he 
had  received  from  a  man  who  was  engaged  in  the 
business  of  curing  herrings.  He  said,  "  I  am  a 
Free  Trader  in  every  other  respect,  but  with  regard 
to  herrings  I  caution  you  against  the  general  ruin 
which  you  are  about  to  inflict  on  those  engaged  in 
that  branch  of  trade." 

When  Sir  Robert  sat  ddwn  Mr.  Hume  congrat- 
ulated the  ministers  on  their  conversion  to  the 
principles  of  Free  Trade.  This  pleasantry  was  re- 
sented by  Mr.  Gladstone,  who  declared  that  no 
conversion  had  taken  place,  and  that  their  opin- 
ions remained  unchanged.  As  a  discrimination 
was  made  in  the  New  Tariff  in  favor  of  the  British 
colonies,  a  great  deal  of  alarm  was  manifested,  lest 
the  Americans  should  smuggle  their  bacon  into 
England  by  the  way  of  Canada,  and  thus  obtain 
the  benefit  of  the  colonial  tariff;  but  this  was 
quieted  by  Mr.  Gladstone  who  "  did  not  think  the 
proposed  duty  could  facilitate  fraud  by  the  impor- 
tation of  American  produce  through  the  colonies." 
This  alarm  about  American  bacon  was  not  because 
the  revenue  might  be  defrauded  by  it,  but  was  en- 
tirely a   Protectionist  fear  that  its  introduction 


84  HISTORY   OP  FREE  TRADE. 

might  make  meat  a  little  cheaper  to  the  hungry 
people  of  England. 

Notwithstanding  the  plausible  persuasions  of 
Sir  Robert  Peel,  the  Protectionist  country  gentle- 
men were  not  at  all  satisfied  that  lean  cattle 
wouldn't  come  in,  and  fat  cattle  too.  Mr.  Miles, 
member  for  Somerset,  actually  took  issue  with  the 
government,  and  moved  an  amendment  to  the 
effect  that  imported  cattle  should  be  taxed  by 
weight.  The  amendment  amounted  to  nothing, 
for  Sir  Robert  had  his  party  too  well  in  hand, 
and  they  feared  to  break  away  from  him.  They 
were  in  such  an  irritable  frame  of  mind  that  when 
Mr.  Villiers  attempted  to  speak  to  the  amendment, 
they  greeted  him  with  impatient  marks  of  displeas- 
ure, and  much  interruption.  Mr.  Hume  received 
no  better  treatment. 

Lord  John  Russell  ridiculed  the  contrary  argu- 
ments of  Sir  Robert  Peel  and  Mr.  Miles ;  one  pretend- 
ing that  cattle  wouldn't  come  in,  and  the  ot  her 
contending  that  they  would,  and  not  only  that, 
but  their  coming  would  reduce  the  price  of  beef. 
He  thought  the  argument  of  Mr.  Miles  against  the 
bill  was  very  strongly  in  its  favor ;  while  those  of 
Mr.  Gladstone  and  Sir  Robert  Peel  in  its  favor 
were  very  much  against  it.  He  said,  "  If  the  alarm 
of  Mr.  Miles  is  well  founded  that  the  measure  will 
give  us  better  beef  at  a  cheaper  rate,  let  us  by  all 
means  adopt  the  proposition.  What  are  we  here 
for?  Is  it  to  prevent  the  people  from  having 
cheap  food?" 


THE    HORIZONTAL    PLAN.  86 

Even  potatoes  had  been  shut  out  of  the  country 
by  high  protective  duties.  The  NewTariflfadmitr 
ted  them  on  payment  of  two  pence  per  hundred 
weight  from  foreign  countries,  and  one  penny  per 
hundred  weight  from  British  Colonies.  It  was 
contended  that  twelve  pence  per  hundred  weight, 
was  little  enough  protection  for  the  English  potato 
grower,  and  that  it  was  the  highest  patriotism  to 
keep  old  England  independent  of  foreign  potatos. 
Mr.  Palmer  gravely  said  that  this  was  a  question  of 
very  considerable  importance  to  the  agricultural 
interests  of  the  country,  because  it  "resolved 
itself  into  the  consideration  whether  we  should 
or  should  not  be  dependent  on  foreign  sup- 
plies." Mr.  Stuart  Wortley,  who  had  defeated 
Lord  Morpeth  for  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire, 
expressed  much  nervousness  on  the  potato  ques- 
tion, because  "  he  had  been  given  to  understand 
that  potatos  might  be  imported  from  France  and 
Holland  at  a  very  low  rate."  Mr.  Gladstone  paci- 
fied those  timid  persons  with  some  soothing  syrup 
to  the  effect  that  it  was  not  likely  that  many  pota- 
tos would  come  in  anyhow,  even  if  the  tariff 
should  be  taken  from  them  altogether. 

Every  monopoly  protested  against  the  New 
Tariff.  The  mine  owners  of  Cornwall  protested 
against  a  reduction  of  the  duties  on  metal  ores, 
and  the  members  from  that  county  gave  warning 
that  if  the  deep  mines  of  Cornwall  were  once 
abandoned  they  would  never  be  worked  again. 
Some  other  people  protested  against  a  reduction  of 


86  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

the  duty  on  iron,  because  it  was  necessary  that 
British  iron  should  be  protected  against  the  "  pau- 
per "iron  of  Germany.  Some  persons  owned  a 
stone  quarry  on  the  Isle  of  Portland.  They  pro- 
tested against  a  reduction  of  the  tariff  on  building 
stone,  and  declared  that  such  reduction  would  be 
the  ruin  of  their  "industry."  Even  the  wretched 
Irish  peasant  claimed  protection  for  his  pig,  and 
Mr.  Smith  O'Brien  actually  moved  to  increase  the 
duty  on  swine  from  five  shillings  a  head  all  round 
to  four  shillings  a  hundred  weight.  Every  "  inter- 
est "  predicted  ruin  to  the  country  if  its  particular 
monopoly  should  be  disturbed.  In  this  way  nearly 
everything  from  steam  engines  to  apples,  and  from 
fat  cattle  to  lobsters,  had  to  fight  for  a  reduction  of 
taxation,  and  Sir  Robert  Peel  was  solemnly  warned 
a  hundred  times  to  be  careful,  or  he  would  afflict 
the  land  with  cheapness  and   abundance. 

Among  the  curiosities  of  this  debate  was  the 
statemement  of  Peel,  that  he  couldn't  conceive  any 
possibility  of"  danger  "  from  the  importation  of  cat- 
tle from  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  river.  This 
was  in  answer  to  Major  Vivian  who  wanted  the  duty 
on  Canada  cattle  to  be  equal  to  that  on  cattle  from 
other  countries,  because  if  it  was  not,  he  feared 
that  cattle  from  the  Western  States  would  invade 
England  by  the  way  of  Canada.  That  a  Prime 
Minister  of  England  should  speak  of  the  prospect 
of  cheap  cattle  as  "dangerous,"  proves  that  Eng- 
lish statesmen  in  1842,  were  as  unenlightened  as 
to  the  principles  of  political  economy,  and  the  true 


THE    HORIZONTAL    PLAN.  87 

ingredients  of  wealth,  as  our  American  statesmen 
are  in  1884,  Yet  all  through  this  debate  Peel  and 
Gladstone  were  soothing  and  wheedling  a  lot  of 
parliamentary  dunces  with  predictions  that  al- 
though they  were  reducing  the  import  duties  on 
several  hundred  articles,  yet,  for  all  that,  there 
was  not  much  "  danger "  that  they  would  take 
advantage  of  it;  that  in  fact,  there  was  no  danger 
that  the  country  would  be  "  flooded  with  cheap 
goods."  After  a  weary  journey  of  several  weeks 
through  the  committee  of  the  whole  house,  the 
New  Tariff  bill  passed  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  was  sent  up  to  the  Lords. 

When  the  bill  went  up  to  the  Lords  it  had  to 
run  the  gauntlet  of  the  same  opposition  it  had  met 
in  the  House  of  Commons.  Lord  Stanhope  used 
an  argument  which  has  a  familiar  sound  to  us 
here  in  America.  The  reduction  of  duties,  he  said, 
would  cause  great  distress  among  the  industrial 
classes  with  whom  the  "  foreigner  "  was  put  un- 
fairly in  competition.  Free  Trade,  he  said,  could 
not  be  introduced  into  this  country  on  account  of 
the  habits  and  prejudices  of  the  people,  but  this 
bill  would  go  far  to  introduce  that  system.  Then 
he  uttered  the  solemn  prediction  that  "  the  mea- 
sure would  tend  to  the  utter  destruction  of  the 
country.  The  Duke  of  Richmond  opposed  the 
bill  because  it  brought  the  English  producer  into 
competition  with  the  "  pauper  "  labor  of  foreign 
countries.  Nevertheless  the  bill  was  allowed  to 
pass. 


88  HISTOEY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

The  House  of  Lords  being  composed  almost  ex- 
clusively of  great  land  owners  and  monopolists,  it 
is  not  surprising  that  the  principles  of  Free  Trade 
were  looked  upon  in  that  House  as  very  low  and 
vulgar,  as  revolutionary  in  fact,  and  destructive  of 
that  hoary  feudal  system  on  which  the  aristoc- 
racy of  England  rested.  The  noble  peers  regarded 
pheasants  and  peasants  as  alike  made  for  their 
exclusive  use  and  pleasure;  and  being  a  very 
ignorant  set  of  people,  they  were  easily  thrown 
into  panic  whenever  they  thought  their  monopo- 
lies were  threatened.  They  regarded  the  Anti- 
Com-Law  League  as  a  monster  more  revolution- 
ary and  dreadful  than  even  the  steam  engine,  or 
the  electric  telegraph,  or  even  an  untaxed  newspa- 
per. On  the  19th  of  April.,  1842,  Lord  Brougham 
moved  in  the  House  of  Peers  that  no  tax  should 
be  levied  upon  corn,  either  for  Protection  or  for 
revenue.  It  is  not  surprising  that  this  motion 
was  lost  by  89  to  6.  The  wonder  is  where  the  six 
came  from. 

On  the  8th  of  July,  the  state  of  the  country  be- 
ing under  discussion,  Mr.  Cobden  censured  Sir 
Robert  Peel  for  affecting  to  believe  that  the  pre- 
vailing distress  was  due  to  the  introduction  of 
machinery.  He  said,  machinery  does  not  throw 
people  out  of  work  if  its  perfection  and  introduction 
to  practical  use  are  gradual.  He  called  upon  Sir 
Robert  Peel  not  to  treat  the  subject  with  quibbles 
about  machinery,  nor  as  a  mere  Manchester  ques- 
tion, but  to  look  at  it  in  connection  with  the  whole 


THE    HORIZONTAL    PLAN.  89 

condition  of  the  country — ^and  it  must  be  done  this 
session. 

Sir  Robert  made  his  escape  on  this  occason  with 
great  ingenuity  and  skill.  Mr.  Cobden  was  mem- 
ber for  Stockport;  and  Sir  Robert  cited  practical 
authorities  from  Stockport  itself,  showing  by  the 
evidence  of  one  of  the  relieving  officers  of  the  Stock- 
port Union,  that  the  distress  prevailing  there  was 
to  be  dated  from  the  introduction  ef  improved 
machinery  into  the  mills,  whereby  a  large  num- 
ber of  hands  was  rendered  unnecessary. 

The  same  class  of  topics  being  under  debate 
in  the  House  of  Lords,  Lord  Brougham 
labored  to  disprove  what  he  considered  one 
of  the  grossest  fallacies  that  had  ever  been  as- 
serted, that  the  increase  of  machinery  was  the 
cause  of  the  distress.  He  said  also,  that  if  the 
House  did  away  with  protective  duties  it  would 
be  impossible  for  other  countries  to  maintain  them. 
In  this  last  opinion  Lord  Brougham  made  a  seri- 
ous mistake.  The  United  States,  Germany,  Can- 
ada, Australia,  and  some  other  countries  have  not 
relaxed  restrictive  duties  in  accordance  with  Lord 
Brougham's  prediction.  On  the  contrary  they 
l\3,ve  made  tliem  more  onerous  than  ever.  Not 
until  they  have  all  passed  through  the  same  costly 
experience  that  England  underwent  will  they  relax 
that  unwise  constriction  which  is  strangling  their 
industries  and  destroying  their  markets,  as  it 
strangled  the  industries  and  destroyed  the  markets 
of  Great  Britain. 


90  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

In  August  Parliament  adjourned,  and  people 
had  time  to  foot  up  the  accounts  of  the  session, 
and  strike  a  balance  of  party  gains  and  losses. 
There  was  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  amount 
of  profit  and  loss,  but  all  agreed  that  whatever 
gains  had  been  made  must  be  placed  to  the  credit 
of  the  Free  Traders,  and  that  the  losses  were  all  on 
the  side  of  the  Protectionists.  The  material  gain 
to  the  Free  Traders  made  by  the  reduction  of 
duties  in  the  New  Tariff  was  trifling  in  comparison 
to  the  moral  victory  they  had  won  in  compelling 
the  ministry  to  concede  the  principle  of  Free 
Trade.  It  was  noticed  that  in  all  the  debates  the 
ministers  had  been  careful  not  to  defend  Protec- 
tion on  its  merits.  They  apologized  for  it  and 
pleaded  for  it.  They  argued  that  great  interests 
had  grown  up  around  it,  that  society  had  shaped 
itself  to  it,  and  that  it  could  not  be  suddenly  and 
violently  overthrown  without  carrying  in  its  fall 
the  ruin  of  the  protected  classes,  and  shaking 
violently  the  business  of  the  country ;  but  they 
did  not  defend  it  as  a  correct  principle  of  political 
economy. 

Armed  with  this  concession  the  League  renevroS 
its  assault  upon  monopoly,  and  during  the  recess 
it  was  busy  educating  the  people  and  creating  a 
public  opinion  that  should  be  more  potent  in  the 
next  session  than  it  had  ever  been  before.  Great 
public  meetings  were  held  in  all  parts  of  the  country, 
and  Free  Trade  resolutions  were  adopted  at  all 
of  them.     On  the  22d  of  November  a  very  large 


THE    HORIZONTAL     TLAN.  91 

meeting  was  held  at  the  town  hall,  Manchester, 
consisting  of  merchants,  spinners,  manufacturers, 
machine- makers,  and  other  capitalists,  and  em- 
ployers of  workingmen  in  Lancashire  and 
Cheshire,  to  consider  the  steps  to  be  adopted  in 
consequence  of  the  ruinous  effect  produced  on 
trade  by  the  operation  of  the  Corn-Laws,  and  the 
restrictive  commercial  policy.  This  meeting  was 
called  by  the  League,  and  it  was  resolved  to  raise 
$250,000  for  the  work ;  $20,000  of  it  was  put  into 
the  hat  there  and  then.  This  was  considered  a 
great  collection  for  one  meeting,  and  yet  before  the 
work  was  ended  $300,000  was  contributed  at  one 
meeting  in  that  very  same  town  to  the  funds  of  the 
League. 


CHAPTER   VI. 
HARD     TIMES. 

Condition  of  the  People  in   1843 — Eiots  in  the  North — 
John  Bright — Blackwood   Assails  the  League — Opening 
of  Parliament — The  Queen's  Speech — Deficiency  in  the 
Revenue—  Prostration  of  Business — Lord  Howick's  Eeso- 
lution  on  the  Manufacturing  Distress — Debate  Thereon — 
Mr.    Gladstone    Answers    Lord    Howick — Mr.    Disraeli 
Defends  the  Corn- Laws — Cobden  on  the  Landlords — Hia 
Personal  Quarrel  with  Peel — Defeat  of  the  Resolutions. 
The  Protective  System  had  reduced  the  people 
of  England  to  a  pitiful  condition  of  poverty  and 
immorality,  a  condition  of  debasement  so  squalid 
and  obscene,  that  men  born  within  the  last  forty- 
five  years,  not  having  seen  it,  can  hardly  believe 
it  possible.     In  utter  desperation  the  Chartists 
broke  into  rioting  and   tumult   at   Manchester, 
Preston,  Blackburn,  and  nearly  all  the  manfactur- 
ing  towns.     Great  loss  of  life  and  property  resulted 
from  those  riots.     The  police  force  was  not  able 
to  subdue  the  rioters,  and  they  were  finally  sup- 
pressed by  the  military  power.     The  condition  of 
England   was  one  of  great  anxiety,  not  to   say 
alarm.     The  influence  of  the  League  was  thrown 
in  favor  of  moral  force  agitation  alone,  but  the 
Chartists  contended  that  no  reform  was  possible 
except  through  the  agency  of  a  violent  revolution. 
The  counsel  of  the  League  proved  to  be  the  wiser 
in  the  end. 

92 


HARD    TIMES.  93 

It  was  about  this  time  that  John  Bright  began 
to  be  recognized  as  a  power  in  the  State.  Although 
not  yet  in  Parliament,  his  influence  outside  of  it 
was  almost  as  great  as  Cobden's  inside.  A  mas- 
sive Englishman  was  John  Bright ;  a  handsome 
man,  strong  of  body  and  brain,  one  of  the  few 
great  orators  of  modern  England.  His  eloquence 
was  pure,  sparkling,  strong.  His  invective  burned 
like  fire.  He  was  more  fluent  and  stately  than 
Cobden,  though  no  man  could  be  more  convincing. 
His  voice  was  melodious,  his  magnetism  great, 
and  thousands  of  men  crowded  and  jostled  one 
another  to  get  near  him.  They  saw  in  him  one  of 
the  great  apostles  of  peace,  a  man  whose  politics 
were  prompted  and  controlled  by  the  most  sub- 
lime religion.  He  subdued  the  mad  passions  and 
the  vengeful  turbulence  of  the  hungry  multitude, 
and  in  their  stead  he  created  a  moral  wisdom  and 
a  patient  energy  that  gained  the  victory  at  last. 
Second  to  Cobden,  and  to  Cobden  alone,  was  John 
Bright  in  the  great  work  of  lifting  the  incubus  of 
the  protective  tariff"  from  the  industries  of  Great 
Britain.  He  rendered  great  service  between  the 
close  of  the  session  of  1841  and  the  opening  of 
the  session  of  1843. 

During  the  fall  and  winter  of  1842,  notwith- 
standing the  evidence  of  the  riots,  and  the  figures 
of  the  Poor  Law  Guardians,  there  were  news- 
papers, magazines,  and  even  statesmen,  who 
insisted  that  the  reports  of  public  distress  had 
been  exaggerated  by  the  emissaries  of  the  League, 


94  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

for  the  sake  of  political  capital,  and  to  create  a 
popular  sympathy  and  alarm  that  should  operate 
on  the  government,  and  by  a  sort  of  moral  duress 
compel  the  ministers  to  make  concessions  to  an 
unwise  and  mischievous  policy.  Blackioood's 
Magazine,  the  most  eminent  literary  journal  in 
the  Empire,  declared  in  mockery  of  the  people's 
hunger,  that  "  For  any  real  mischief  which  they 
can  work,  the  present  Corn-Laws  are  as  quiescent 
as  the  laws  of  gravitation ; "  and  the  effort  to 
relieve  the  people  by  the  importation  of  foreign 
grain  was  described  as  "  the  wicked  Corn-Law 
agitation."  In  one  article  by  Christopher  North 
himself,  and  to  which  he  attached  his  name,  the 
Free  Traders  were  described  as  "  the  mischievous 
vermin  of  the  Anti-Corn-Law  League."'  Cobden, 
Bright,  Villiers,  and  the  other  leaders  of  the 
movement  he  stigmatized  as  "ignorant  and  vulgar 
babblers,"  and  he  denounced  "  the  systematic  and 
mercenary  wickedness  of  their  intentions." 

In  spite  of  all  efforts  to  conceal  the  sufferings 
of  the  people  and  to  depreciate  their  extent,  the 
aspect  of  public  affairs  at  the  opening  of  the  year 
1843  was  of  a  dark  and  threatening  character. 
The  public  mind  was  feverish  with  anxiety  and 
alarm.  The  revenue  figures  appeared  as  witnesses, 
and  they  could  neither  be  impeached  nor  brow- 
beaten out  of  court.  They  showed  a  serious 
falling  off  in  the  receipts  from  those  articles  the 
use  of  which  gives  evidence  of  prosperity.  Par- 
liament  met   on  the  2d  of   February,  1843,  and 


HARD    TIMES.  95 

then  the  ministers  were  compelled  to  give  official 
recognition  to  the  public  distress  in  a  speech 
from  the  tlirone.     It  contained  these  words : 

"  Her  Majesty  regrets  the  diminished  receipts 
from  some  of  the  ordinary  sources  of  revenue." 

"  Her  Majesty  fears  that  it  must  be  in  part 
attributed  to  the  reduced  consumption  of  many 
articles,  caused  by  that  depression  of  the  manu- 
facturing industry  of  the  country  which  has  so 
long  prevailed,  and  which  Her  Majesty  has  so 
deeply  lamented." 

The  Earl  of  Powis  who  was  appointed  by  Sir 
Robert  Peel  to  move  the  address  in  the  House  of 
Lords  in  answer  to  the  speech  from  the  throne, 
stepped  very  tenderly  over  that  part  of  it  which 
referred  to  the  public  distress.  He  skipped  over 
it  very  much  like  a  schoolboy  skipping  the  hard 
words  in  a  reading  lesson.  He  lightly  remarked, 
"  We  cannot  conceal  from  ourselves  the  conviction 
that  great  masses  of  the  population  of  this 
country  in  the  course  of  the  last  year  hare  been 
unable  to  avail  themselves  to  the  same  extent 
as  formerly,  of  tliose  enjoyments  which  they 
usually  possess."  He  did  not  like  to  use  so 
unpleasant  a  word  as  "  starvation  "  in  such  lordly 
company,  neither  did  the  Earl  of  Eglinton  who 
seconded  the  address.  He  trusted  that  the  worst 
was  over.  He  had  that  hopeful  philoso{)hy  which 
believes  that  things  will  all  come  out  right,  and 
that  most  likely  something  will  turn  up.  He 
ho|)e(l  that  "  by  the  revival  of  trade  and  commerce 


96  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

the  sufferings  of  the  people  would  be  alleviated." 
There  was  a  dull  inconsistency  in  this  hope,  be- 
cause the  Earl  of  Eglinton  and  his  party  were  at 
that  very  moment  bent  on  preserving  a  protective 
tariff  for  the  very  purpose  of  restricting  "  trade  " 
and  preventing  "commerce."  In  the  House  of 
Commons  the  mover  and  seconder  of  the  address 
talked  very  much  like  their  colleagues  in  the 
House  of  Lords.  The  criticisms  of  the  opposi- 
tion were  feeble  and  rather  apologetic  as  if  the 
Whigs  felt  themselves  to  some  extent  guilty  of  the 
surrounding  misery.  Lord  John  Russell,  how- 
ever, made  an  irresistible  point  against  Peel  when 
he  twitted  him  with  having  reduced  his  supporters 
to  this  difficulty,  "  that  they  were  obliged  to  vin- 
cate  the  tariff  on  principles  of  Free  Trade,  and 
the  Corn-Laws  on  principles  of  Protection." 

A  wild-eyed  Yorkshireman,  Mr.  Ferrand,  mem- 
ber for  Knaresborough,  declared  that  there  would 
be  no  protection  for  the  poor  unless  machinery 
was  taxed  sufficiently  to  restrain  its  use  and 
activity  within  such  bounds  as  would  prevent  its 
competition  with  hand-labor.  This  crazy  states- 
manship excited  laughter  from  all  sides  of  the 
House,  and  yet  it  was  in  logical  harmony  with  the 
Protective  System.  Importation  produced  abund- 
ance, which  it  was  the  intent  and  purpose  of  a 
protective  taxation  to  restrain.  Machinery  created 
abundance,  and  why  should  not  that  also  be 
restricted  by  the  device  of  taxation  ?  Besides, 
had   not  Sir  Robert  Peel  himself,  in  his  debate 


HARD    TIMES-  97 

with  Cobden  in  July,  ascribed  the  distress  of  the 
country,  in  part,  to  the  competition  of  machinery? 
and  had  he  not  proved  it,  too,  by  the  official 
statements  of  the  guardians  of  the  poor  in  Mr. 
Cobden 's  own  borough  of  Stockport?  Why, 
then,  should  the  statesmanship  of  Mr.  Ferrand  be 
laughed  at,  and  that  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  admired  ? 
On  the  18th  of  February,  1843,  Lord  Howick 
moved  that  the  House  resolve  itself  into  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  to  consider  the  distress  of  the 
country ;  and  thereupon  arose  one  of  the  most 
instructive  debates  that  ever  took  place  in  Parlia- 
ment. Lord  Howick  contended  that  the  pro- 
tective tariff  had  crippled  the  agricultural, 
mining,  manufacturing,  and  the  shipping  interests 
of  the  country,  and  he  argued  that  the  Corn- Laws 
ought  to  be  repealed.  He  said  that  the  distress 
was  largely  caused  by  laws  which  went  directly  to 
the  restriction  of  importation.  This  restriction 
was  not  an  incident  arising  from  taxation  for 
revenue  purposes,  but  it  was  intentionally  created 
in  order  to  check  importation  from  foreign 
countries.  He  insisted  that  increased  importation 
would  stimulate  and  encourage  domestic  industry 
instead  of  aiding  to  depress  it.  This  assertion  was 
rather  a  speculation  and  a  theory  in  England  at 
the  time  Lord  Howick  made  it,  but  experience 
has  established  the  truth  of  it  as  firmly  as  any 
proposition  in  Euclid  is  established  by  demonstra- 
tion. "  If  you  tell  me,"  said  Lord  Howick,  "  tiiat 
my  argument  is  only  a  theory,  what  is  yours? 


98  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

Your  whole  system  of  restriction  is  built  on  a 
theory  which  cannot  be  defended  now,  a  theory 
which  took  its  rise  in  the  notion  that  gold  and 
silver  constituted  wealth — that  all  that  a  nation 
gained  by  trade  went  to  increase  the  amount  of 
its  gold  and  silver,  and  that  to  increase  its  exports 
and  to  decrease  its  imports,  in  order  to  leave  a 
favorable  balance  of  trade,  was  a  wise  policy." 

We  can  hardly  conceive  that  the  present  Prime 
Minister  of  England,  the  great  leader  of  the 
Liberal  party,  was  that  night  the  Tory  champion, 
whose  duty  it  became  to  answer  Lord  Howick. 
Mr.  Gladstone  admitted  the  distress  of  the 
country,  although  he  thought  Lord  Howick  had 
exaggerated  it.  He  conceded  much  of  the  argu- 
ment of  his  adversary,  but  resisted  the  motion  on 
the  ground  of  expediency.  It  was  not  the  time 
to  repeal  the  Corn-Law.  The  measures  of  last 
session  had  not  had  a  fair  trial.  They  ought  to 
see  what  other  nations  would  do  to  reciprocate  a 
reduction  of  duties.  England  could  not  be  ex- 
pected to  open  her  ports  while  she  had  hostile 
foreign  tariffs  to  contend  against,  and  so  on. 
Never  once  did  he  contend  that  the  Protective 
System  was  sound,  either  in  morals  or  as  a  system 
of  social  science.  His  speech  was  an  excuse  for 
Protection,  not  a  defense  of  it,  except,  perhaps, 
where  he  sought  to  make  a  distinction  between 
Protection  to  agriculture,  and  Protection  to  other 
interests.  No  commercial  law,  he  said,  could  l^e 
permanent,  but  that  of  Protection  to  agriculture 


HARD    TIMES.  99 

was  SO,  and  he  was  not  prepared  to  abandon  it  so 
long  as  Protection  was  given  to  any  other  interest. 
He  further  said  that  Lord  Howick  might  have 
spared  himself  the  trouble  of  advancing  abstract 
principles  when  the  real  question  waa  one  of  time 
and  degree.  He  wound  up  with  the  usual  flip- 
pant formula  that  the  motion  was  fraught  with 
disaster  to  every  interest  in  the  country.  It  is 
still  the  religious  belief  of  every  Protectionist  that 
if  you  assail  his  monopoly  you  threaten  disaster 
to  every  other  interest  in  the  country. 

The  Protectionist  principle  that  the  end  of  all 
true  political  economy  is  to  promote  scarcity, 
found  outspoken  champions  in  this  debate.  Mr. 
Ferrand  contended  that  the  distress  of  the  country 
was  all  owing  to  machinery,  and  that  if  machinery 
could  be  done  away  with,  the  conveniences  of  life 
would  become  scarcer,  and  this  would  create  a 
demand  for  labor,  the  people  would  all  get  em- 
ployment at  good  wages,  and  prosperity  would  be 
the  result.  He  therefore  moved  the  following 
amendment  to  the  motion  of  Lord  Howick,  "  and 
also  to  inquire  into  tlie  effects  of  machinery  upon 
the  moral  and  physical  condition  of  the  working 
classes."  He  advocated  returning  "  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  our  forefathers,"  as  opposed  to  Free 
Trade,  which  new-fangled  heresy  was  destroying 
the  interests  of  the  working  classes.  Mr.  Ferrand 
was  not  alone  in  his  opinions,  for  Mr.  Liddell 
thought  that  Lord  Howick's  plan  of  opening  up 
new  markets  would  do  no  good.  I)ecau8e  such  was 


100  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

"  the  tremendous  power  of  machinery  in  England 
that  they  would  soon  be  overstocked  as  well  as 
the  old."  Mr.  Ward  apologized  for  machinery  on 
the  curious  ground  that  it  was  necessary  in  order 
for  the  English  to  compete  with  the  cheaper  labor, 
and  more  fertile  soil  of  other  countries.  He 
thought  that  the  Americans  had  made  a  mistake 
in  their  high  protective  tariff  of  1842,  but  con- 
tended that  the  English  had  provoked  it  by  fixing 
such  a  high  duty  on  American  grain.  The  most 
bewildering  doctrine  that  this  remarkable  debate 
produced  came  from  Mr.  Muntz,  member  for  the 
important  town  of  Birmingham,  who  contended 
that  the  present  condition  of  things  was  unnatural, 
and  that  "  we  must  either  repeal  the  Corn-Laws 
or  lower  the  price  of  silver. ^^  No  wonder  the  com- 
mon people  should  have  such  crude  notions  on 
the  science  of  political  economy,  when  the  states- 
men of  the  country  could  talk  as  they  did  in  this 
debate. 

Mr.  Disraeli  took  part  in  the  debate.  He  was 
then  an  ambitious  young  man  with  a  conscious- 
ness that  he  possessed  talent  which  ought  to  bring 
substantial  reward  in  a  political  market,  when 
talent  was  so  much  in  demand.  He  was  literally 
a  Parliamentary  adventurer  "  seeking  his  fortune." 
He  had  started  in  politics  a  violent  Radical,  but 
soon  discovered,  in  the  slang  of  the  Americans, 
that  such  nonsense  as  that  "wouldn't  pay."  He 
therefore  joined  the  Tory  party,  which  to  say  the 
least  of  it,  was  always  generous  in  the  apprecia- 


HARD    TIMES.  101 

tion  of  talent.  He  had  written  two  or  three 
trashy  novels  which  had  given  him  a  footing  in 
the  literary  guild.  He  was  flattered  when  people 
pointed  him  out  at  Lady  Blessington's,  and  said, 
"  That's  young  Disraeli,  the  man  who  wrote 
Vivian  Grey ; "  but  he  shrewdly  saw  that  this  per- 
fume was  fleeting  and  unsubstantial,  and  that  if 
he  was  ever  to  win  advancement  and  make  a 
record  in  this  world  he  must  do  so  in  the  House 
of  Commons.  He  failed  at  first,  not  because  there 
was  not  merit  in  what  he  said,  but  because  it  was 
all  covered  over,  like  his  waistcoat,  with  cheap 
jewelry  and  tinsel.  That  sort  of  thing  may  do 
very  well  for  some  places,  but  the  House  of 
Commons  "won't  have  it,  you  know,"  and  he  was 
chaffed  and  ridiculed.  He  diligently  sought 
Peel's  patronage  by  tenders  of  loyal  service,  but 
Peel,  to  the  day  of  his  death,  could  never  see  any- 
thing in  him,  and  he  refused  to  employ  him.  He 
probably  regarded  him  as  an  Asiatic  exotic  that 
could  never  be  developed  into  an  English  states- 
man. This  was  bad  for  Peel,  because  Disraeli 
afterwards  took  revenge  in  a  shower  of  poisoned 
arrows  that  gave  pain  to  the  great  minister  in  the 
hour  of  his  fall.  Besides,  Peel's  judgment  of  him 
was  erroneous,  because,  although  to  the  last  there 
was  much  of  the  gaudy  and  theatrical  about 
Disraeli,  there  were  beneath  the  frippery  the  solid 
qualities  of  statesmanship,  nor  was  it  of  the 
Asiatic  kind,  but  of  that  practical,  fighting,  acquir- 
ing, conquering,  Rule  Britannia  sort,   peculiarly 


102  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

English.  Peel  never  dreamed  that  this  young 
politician  whose  services  he  would  not  have  at 
any  price,  was  destined  to  be  an  Earl,  a  Knight 
of  the  Garter,  and  Prime  Minister  of  England. 

Mr.  Disraeli  opposed  the  motion  and  contended 
that  much  of  the  distress  was  to  be  attributed  to 
the  fact  that  treaties  of  commerce  had  not  been 
carried  out  with  France,  Brazil,  and  other  countries, 
which  countries  were  consequently  closed  against 
the  manufactures  of  England.  He  improved  the 
occasion  to  offer  himself  unconditionally  to  the 
Tory  aristocracy.  He  had  the  daring  to  declare 
that  "  he  thought  the  present  Corn-Law  not  in- 
jurious to  commerce,  while  it  maintained  as  it 
ought  to  do  the  preponderating  influence  of  the 
landed  interest."  He  then  went  off  into  rhetori- 
cal hysterics  about  "the  Doge  of  Venice,  who 
when  looking  out  on  the  Lagunes,  covered  with 
the  ships  engaged  in  the  trade  of  the  Levant,  said 
that,  '  notwithstanding  all  he  saw,  Venice,  without 
its  terra  firma,  would  be  like  an  eagle  with  one 
wing.'  So  should  he  say  of  England,  and  he 
should  not  therefore  consent  to  destroy  the  pre- 
ponderating influence  of  the  landed  proprietary  of 
the  country."  The  eastern  adornment  on  all  this 
went  for  nothing.  The  "  landed  proprietary " 
knew  little  and  cared  less  about  the  Doge  of 
Venice  and  his  Lagunes,  but  Mr.  Disraeli's  bid  for 
employment  was  taken  into  consideration  and  in 
due  time  it  was  accepted. 


HARD    TIMES.  103 

Mr.  Villiers  made  an  argument  so  strong  in 
common  sense,  and  so  sarcastic  in  its  application 
that  it  created  much  nervousness  and  irritation  on 
the  Tory  benches.  He  said  that  Mr.  Gladstone 
had  vindicated  the  restrictive  principle  of  the 
Corn- Laws,  because  it  had  always  been  the  rule 
in  legislation  to  treat  corn  in  a  peculiar  way.  "  Of 
course  that  has  been  the  rule,"  said  Mr.  Villiers, 
"  and  why  ?  Because  the  legislation  of  the 
country  has  always  been  under  the  control  of  the 
landed  aristocracy."  Legislators  who  had  great 
interests  of  their  own  to  serve  would  always  be 
found  passing  laws  to  protect  and  advance  those 
interests.  Mr.  Villiers  said,  "There  have  been 
twenty-five  Corn-Laws  since  1765.  Yes,  and  in 
five  hundred  years  there  have  been  forty."  He 
then  threw  ridicule  upon  the  whole  Protective 
System  by  a  couple  of  illustrations  drawn  from 
the  records  of  Parliament.  Less  than  a  century 
ago,  he  said,  a  petition  was  presented  by  one 
county  against  another;  the  former  had  always 
grown  beans,  and  wished  to  retain  the  monopoly. 
It  wanted  "  Protection  "  against  the  competition  of 
the  neighbor  county  which  had  lately  set  itself  up 
as  a  rival  in  the  bean-raising  industry.  The  other 
illustration  was  the  petition  of  the  county  of 
Middlesex  against  the  making  of  good  roads, 
because  thereby  the  farmers  of  that  county  would 
lose  the  monopoly  of  the  London  Market.  Mr. 
Villiers  contended  lh;it  tlie  argument  to  preclude 
one  county    from    com])etin<^  witli    nnotlier    was 


104  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

precisely  the  same  as  the  argument  to  preclude 
one  country  from  competition  with  another,  and 
that  the  principle  and  the  result  were  alike  in 
both  cases.  The  answer  to  this  was  the  statement 
of  Lord  Sandon  that  the  ancient  policy  must  be 
continued  in  order  to  protect  the  "  home  market," 
as  if  that  were  not  the  very  criminal  then  on 
trial;  as  jf  the  experiment  of  centuries  had  not 
shown  that  the  restrictive  system  had  crippled 
and  weakened  not  only  the  home  market,  but  the 
foreign  market  also. 

Mr.  Cobden,  with  his  usual  earnestness  went 
straight  and  fearless  right  to  the  merits  of  the 
question,  as  affecting  not  only  the  manufacturers, 
but  all  the  people  in  the  land.  "  My  chief  objec- 
tion to  the  motion,"  he  said,  "  is  that  it  does  not 
include  agricultural  as  well  as  manufacturing 
distress."  This  point,  however,  should  have  been 
made,  not  against  Lord  Howick's  motion,  but 
against  that  paragraph  in  the  royal  speech  on 
which  the  motion  was  founded.  In  the  speech 
from  the  throne  the  ministers  had  been  careful  to 
say  nothing  about  agricultural  distress.  To  have 
done  so  would  have  been  to  condemn  the  Corn- 
Laws.  They  were  maintained  as  a  special  "  Pro- 
tection "  to  the  agricultural  classes,  and  an  admis- 
sion that  they  had  failed  to  do  so  would  have 
embarrassed  the  ministers  in  the  subsequent 
debates.  Cobden  would  not  allow  them  to  evade 
the  question  in  that  way,  and  to  the  serious  annoy- 
ance of  the  "  landed  proprietary  "  he  dragged  the 


HARD    TIMES.  105 

agricultural  laborer  into  the  debate.  He  showed 
the  wretchedness  of  his  condition,  and  contended 
that  even  the  tenant  farmers  themselves  were 
suffering  loss  and  privation  by  reason  of  the  Corn- 
Laws.  All  this  was  very  irritating  to  the  "  landed 
proprietary,"  because  they  knew  that  it  was  true ; 
but  it  was  endurable  and  even  pleasant  in  com- 
parison with  what  followed. 

Mr.  Cobden  in  a  few  fierce  thrusts  that  could  not 
be  parried  gave  a  mortal  wound  to  the  false  pre- 
tense of  the  landlord  classes  that  they  consti- 
tuted the  "  landed  interest"  of  the  country.  He 
showed  that  on  the  contrary  they  were  its  blight 
and  plague.  For  centuries  the  landlords  had 
masqueraded  as  "agriculturists,"  the  "  landed  in- 
terest," the  great  "  stock-breeders,"  the  "  model 
farmers,"  and  the  like,  when,  in  fact,  with  few  ex- 
ceptions, they  were  simply  a  tax  upon  the  landed 
industry  of  the  country.  The  delusion  was  kept 
up  at  cattle  shows  and  fairs,  where  Dukes  and 
Earls  in  farmer  looking  broad-brimmed  hats  and 
top  boots,  would  walk  about  chewing  straw,  and 
discussing  sheep  and  turnips  with  the  yeomanry. 
As  a  rule  the  English  landlord  had  no  higher 
claims  than  a  cut-worm  to  be  called  an  agricul- 
turist. Cobden  tore  away  the  mask  and  revealed 
the  hypocrisy  of  the  claim.  He  declared  that  the 
landlord  had  no  right  to  class  himself  with  the 
farmers  of  the  land.  He  might  live  all  his  days 
in  Paris  or  in  London.  "The  landlord,"  said 
('i)l)den,  "is  no  more  an  a^ricuUurist  than  a  ship- 


106  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRAI»E. 

owner  is  a  sailor."  Then  turning  to  Peel,  he  said, 
"  You  have  reduced  the  tariff  on  seven  hundred 
articles,  but  you  have  omitted  the  two  that  can 
give  material  relief  t©  the  people,  corn  and  sugar." 

The  conclusion  of  this  speech,  though  vigorous, 
proved  very  unfortunate.  Mr,  Cobden  declared 
that  he  held  the  Prime  Minister  "individually 
responsible  "  for  the  distress  of  the  country,  and 
this  expression,  which  he  had  used  several  times 
lately  in  the  north,  he  repeated  with  strong  em- 
phasis. Sir  Robert  Peel  rose  in  a  state  of  nervous 
excitement,  quite  unusual  with  him,  and  resented 
this  personal  attack.  His  private  secretary,  Mr. 
Drummond,  had  been  assassinated  a  few  days 
before,  in  mistake  for  him,  and  the  tragedy  had 
shocked  him  greatly.  He  referred  to  several 
attacks  of  this  kind  which  the  honorable  member 
had  lately  made  upon  him  elsewhere.  He  accused 
Mr.  Cobden  of  pointing  him  out  for  assassination, 
and  the  sympathy  of  the  House  was  with  Peel. 
In  vain  Mr.  Cobden  tried  to  explain  that  a  wrong 
interpretation  had  been  put  upon  his  words,  and 
that  he  only  alluded  to  the  right  honorable 
baronet  in  his  official  capacity  as  the  head  of  the 
government.     The  House  refused  to  hear  him. 

This  incident  was  an  unhappy  one,  for  it  placed 
those  great  men  in  the  attitude  of  personal 
enemies  for  two  years,  a  position  which  caused 
Cobden  to  be  unjust  to  Peel  on  more  than  one 
occasion.  In  contrast  it  must  be  said  the  treat- 
ment of  Cobden  by  Peel  was  magnanimous.    The 


HARD    TIMES.  107 

suspicion  of  a  motive  so  abhorrent  to  his  gentle 
nature  wounded  Cobden  so  keenly  that  it  seemed 
almost  impossible  to  forgive  the  man,  who,  even 
in  the  excitement  of  a  great  debate  could  impute 
it  to  him.  Three  years  afterwards  Peel  publicly 
acknowledged  in  his  place  in  Parliament  that  in 
this  personal  conflict  he  himself  was  in  the 
wrong.  It  was  in  the  opinion  of  many  that 
although  the  Free  Traders  had  the  best  of  the 
argument,  this  advantage  was  thrown  away  by 
Cobden 's  indiscreet  attack  upon  the  Prime  Min- 
ister. It  is  not  likely  that  it  aflfected  any  votes 
either  one  way  or  the  other.  The  division  showed 
a  majority  for  the  Minister  of  115.  The  numbers 
were,  for  Lord  Howick's  motion,  191 ;  against 
the  motion,  306. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

AMERICAN  WHEAT  AND  THE  DRAIN 
OF   GOLD. 

The  Peculiar  Burdens  upon  Land — Sir  Kobert  Peel  will 
Maintain  the  Existing  Law — Threatened  with  American 
Wheat — Debate  on  the  Annual  Kesolutions  of  Mr.  Vill- 
iers — Mr.  Gladstone  and  the  "  Drain  of  Grold  " — Sir  Edward 
Knatchbull's  Blunder — This  Debate  and  that  on  the 
Morrison  Bill — Mr.  Muntz  on  the  "Drain  of  Gold" — 
Reciprocity — Mr.  Tyler's  Promise  to  Reciprocate — Defeat 
of  the  Resolutions. 

It  had  long  been  the  claim  of  the  "  landed  pro- 
prietary" that  the  Protective  System  was  only  a 
just  compensation  in  return  for  the  "  peculiar  bur- 
dens" thrown  upon  the  land  by  the  poor  rates,  the 
highway  rates,  the  church  rates,  and  all  other  sort  of 
"rates"  that  fell  exclusively  upon  the  land.  A 
great  many  people  knew  that  this  claim  was  largely 
fictitious,  but  as  the  "great  parties"  were  both 
interested  in  advancing  it,  there  was  no  serious 
contradiction  of  it  so  long  as  the  "  burning  issues 
of  the  hour"  consisted  chiefly  in  a  fight  for  the 
offices  between  the  Whigs  and  the  Tories.  But  a 
new  element  was  now  in  Parliament  caring  for 
neither  Whigs  nor  Tories,  and  it  proposed  to  test 
this  claim.  On  the  14th  of  March  Mr.  Ward, 
member  for  Sheffield,  moved  for  a  special  commit- 
tee to  enquire  whether  there  are  any  peculiar  bur- 

108 


THE  DRAIN  OF  GOLD.  109 

dens  specially  affecting  the  landed  interest  of  this 
country,  or  any  peculiar  exemptions  enjoyed  by 
that  interest.  Should  the  committee  be  granted 
Mr.  Ward  agreed  to  show  not  only  that  the  claim 
was  unfounded,  but  also  that  the  power  of  the  land- 
lords had  been  systematically  employed  to  relieve 
themselves  from  taxation,  and  that  a  combination 
existed  amongst  them  dangerous  to  the  other  in- 
terests of  the  country. 

Instead  of  granting  the  committee,  or  answering 
Mr.  Ward,  the  Protectionists  attacked  the  Anti- 
Corn- Law  League ;  and  Mr.  Bankes  moved  as  an 
amendment  to  Mr.  Ward's  motion,  "  that  the 
attention  of  the  House  should  be  directed  to 
certain  associations  dangerous  to  the  public  peace, 
and  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  constitu- 
tion." Mr.  Cochrane  in  seconding  the  amendment 
thought  that  the  House  was  indebted  to  Mr. 
Bankes  for  directing  its  attention  to  the  dangerous 
and  treasonable  proceedings  of  the  League.  He 
charged  the  League  with  sending  emissaries  and 
spies  into  the  country  to  disturb  the  peace  and 
comfort  of  the  peasantry ;  which  is  curiously  like 
the  accusations  that  used  to  be  charged  by  the  Slave 
Lords  in  this  country  against  the  Abolitionists. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  opposed  the  motion,  and  insisted 
that  the  "  peculiar  burdens  "  on  the  land  were  great. 
He  promised  that  at  some  future  time  returns  of 
these  burdens  should  be  laid  before  Parliament. 
As  the  nervous  system  of  the  "  landed  proprietary" 
was  just  then  in  a  fevered  condition  resulting  from 


110  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

anxiety  as  to  Peel's  intentions,  a  soothing  influence 
was  felt  when  the  Prime  Minister  declared  that  if  he 
were  convinced  that  it  was  for  the  interest  of  the 
country  at  large  that  the  Corn-Laws  should  be 
altered,  he  would  not  one  moment  hesitate  to  alter 
them;  but  he  was  not  so  convinced.  There  was  great 
cheering  when  he  said  that  as  the  continuance  of 
doubt  as  to  the  intentions  of  the  government  must 
have  a  tendency  to  unsettle  business,  he  felt  bound 
to  say  that  it  was  his  intention  to  maintain  the 
present  law. 

When  the  cheering  caused  by  this  announce- 
ment had  subsided,  Mr.  Blackstone  congratulated 
the  House  and  the  country  on  the  declaration  just 
made  by  Sir  Robert  Peel.  It  would  give  universal 
satisfaction,  and  put  an  end  to  the  hopes  that 
existed  in  some  quarters  of  being  able  to  tamper 
with  the  law.  He  trusted,  also,  that  the  threat  of 
importing  American  grain  at  a  nominal  duty 
through  Canada  would  not  again  be  heard  of. 
The  promise  of  an  angry  nation  to  fire  shot  and 
shell  into  the  ports  of  its  rival  may  fairly  be 
described  as  a  "threat,"  but  only  the  perverted  and 
inverted  logic  of  a  Protectionist  could  make  a 
"threat"  out  of  the  promise  of  one  great  nation  to 
fire  sacks  of  grain  among  the  hungry  people  of  an- 
other. "  I  was  ruined,"  said  the  little  cobbler  in  the 
Fleet  prison,  to  Sam  Weller, "  I  was  ruined  by  hav- 
ing money  left  me."  So,  in  the  jargon  of  monopoly, 
England  was  "  threatened  "  with  ruin  by  the  cheap 
grain  of  America,  and  to-day  America  is  threat- 


THE   DRAIN   OF  GOLD.  Ill 

ened  with  ruin  by  a  "  flood  of  cheap  goods  from 
England."  Our  statesmen  tell  us  that  we  need  an 
armor-plated  navy,  and  guns  that  can  shoot  like 
earthquakes,  for  England  our  enemy  has  a  great 
artillery  loaded  to  the  muzzle,  ready  to  fire  into 
us  blankets,  and  clothes,  and  rails,  and  wire,  and 
a  hundred  other  bombshells  of  equal  mischief. 
Another  fde  wants  to  fire  sugar  at  us,  and  another 
leather,  and  another  wool.  Let  us  cover  the  seas 
with  war  ships  and  defy  their  "  threats."  Let  us 
make  the  great  ocean  a  lake  of  burning  fluid  if 
necessary  to  "  protect "  our  people  from  the  miss- 
iles of  enlightenment  and  peace.  Mr.  Ward's 
motion  was  defeated  without  an  effort  by  a  major- 
ity of  ninety-nine. 

In  May,  1843,  Mr.  Villiers  brought  forward  his 
annual  motion  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole 
"to  consider  the  import  duties  on  foreign  grain, 
with  a  view  to  their  immediate  and  total  aboli- 
tion." The  debate  on  this  motion  was,  if  possible, 
more  remarkable  in  its  display  of  statesman-like 
ignorance  than  the  other,  but  unlike  the  other,  it 
was  not  all  on  the  side  of  the  Protectionists.  Even 
Mr.  Villiers  himself  showed  a  forgetfulness  of  his 
geography  when  he  said,  "The  use  of  wheaten  bread 
is  denied  to  ten  millions  of  people  in  the  British 
islands,  while  a  plague  had  arisen  in  Louisiana, 
because  the  produce  was  left  to  rot  upon  the  ground 
for  want  of  a  market."  He  evidently  had  a  con- 
fused idea  of  where  Louisiana  was,  or  what  was 
tlie  nature  of  her  {)roducts.     That  wheat  rotting  on 


112  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

the  ground  should  produce  a  plague  was  a  phe- 
nomenon peculiar  to  the  State  of  Louisiana.  Per- 
haps Mr.  Villiers  referred  to  the  vast  territory 
formerly  known  as  Louisiana,  and  if  he  spoke 
prophetically  he  was  not  so  very  far  wrong.  Prob- 
ably his  remark  was  merely  an  exaggerated  word 
painting  of  the  folly  of  one  people  "  protecting" 
themselves  from  sharing  in  the  superabundant 
wealth  of  another.  He  worried  the  House  with 
some  uncomfortable  facts.  He  asserted  that  ten 
millions  of  the  people  could  not  afford  to  indulge  in 
the  luxury  of  wheaten  bread,  that  a  large  portion 
of  the  Irish  lived  on  potatos,  and  that  the  people  of 
Scotland  lived  on  oatmeal.  He  also  showed  that 
in  England  great  numbers  of  the  people  were  lim- 
ited to  a  supply  not  exceeding  fourteen  ounces  a 
day,  and  many  had  not  half  that  quantity. 

Once  more  it  became  the  duty  of  Mr.  Gladstone 
to  answer  the  Free  Traders,  and  he  contented  him- 
self with  leaving  them  unanswered.  In  fact  there 
was  but  one  way  to  answer  Mr,  Villiers,  and  that 
was  by  contradicting  him,  and  showing  that  his 
statements  were  erroneous.  This,  Mr.  Gladstone 
did  not  dare  to  do,  for  he  knew  that  the  figures 
were  correct.  He  did  not  deny  either  the  facts  or 
the  conclusions.  He  admitted  the  distress  of  the 
people,  but  contended  that  they  were  better  off 
than  they  were  two  hundred  years  ago,  which  was 
an  unsubstantial  sort  of  comfort,  and  hardly 
satisfactory.  He  met  the  motion  by  an  emphatic 
negative,  and  declared  that  the  government  would 


THE   DRAIN   OF  GOLD.  113 

not  consent  to  any  further  modification  of  the  Pro- 
tective System.  He  said  that  last  year  the  House 
had  rejected  the  motion  by  three  hundred  and 
ninety-three  to  ninety,  but  if  the  motion  was  unrea- 
sonable twelve  months  ago  it  was  doubly  so  now. 
He  then  condescended  to  use  the  false  pretense 
that  is  so  glibly  maintained  in  the  United  States 
to-day,  namely,  that  a  commercial  law  such  as  a 
Tariff  for  the  Protection  of  certain  trades  u  in  the 
nature  of  a  "  contract "  between  the  government 
and  the  protected  interests.  This  doctrine  would 
perpetuate  extortion  by  converting  a  law  for  rais- 
ing revenue  to  support  the  government,  into  a  con- 
tract with  certain  parties  that  it  should  remain 
upon  the  statute  books  for  the  purpose  of  raising 
revenue  for  them.  He  maintained  that  the  tariff 
of  last  year  was  a  "contract"  with  the  protected 
classes  that  could  not  be  violated.  History  repeats 
itself,  and  we  are  told  in  America  in  the  year  1884, 
that  the  clumsy  juggle  known  as  the  Tariff  of  1883, 
is  a  contract  with  monopoly,  that  shall  not  be 
further  disturbed.  "What  the  country  needs," 
exclaimed  Peel  and  Gladstone,  "  is  rest  from  tariff 
agitation."  "  What  the  country  needs,"  remark  the 
millocrats  and  tariff  statesmen  of  America,  is  "  rest 
from  tariff  agitation." 

Mr.  Gladstone  was  not  yet  free  from  the  ancient 
superstition  about  the  "drain  of  gold,"  and  its 
debilitating  effect  upon  any  country  that  suffers 
from  it.  He  still  believed  that  wealth  consisted  in 
gold  anil  silver,  but  not  in  corn  and  cotton  and 


114  HISTORY   OF  FREE   TRADE. 

wool.  He  thought  that  a  gold  sovereign  was 
riches,  but  that  a  hide  of  leather  was  not.  He  still 
believed  that  it  was  the  duty  of  government  to 
make  the  streams  of  commerce  and  trade  run  up 
hill  and  not  down,  and  that  it  should  waste  its 
energies  for  ever  in  watching  the  "balance  of 
trade,"  and  guarding  against  the  exportation 
of  silver  and  gold.  Wiser  it  was  to  drain  the 
lives  of  the  people  by  hunger  than  to  drain  the  gold 
from  the  country  by  purchasing  flour  in  New  York. 
With  the  air  of  a  minister  announcing  the  loss  of 
a  battle,  Mr.  Gladstone  informed  the  House  of 
Commons  that  already  since  the  beginning  of 
the  year,  three  million  pounds  had  been  sent  to 
America  in  payment  for  the  products  of  that  coun- 
try, and  there  was  a  gloomy  prospect  of  still  fur- 
ther disaster  impending  over  the  nation  because 
"wheat  was  so  cheap  in  the  Mississippi  valley,  that 
if  a  protective  tax  upon  its  importation  should  be 
abolished  vast  quantities  of  it  would  be  poured 
upon  England."  Even  a  heart  of  pig-iron  might 
be  softened  into  compassionate  putty  at  the  pros- 
pect of  such  calamitous  abundance.  As  the  meas- 
ures of  last  year  had  not  yet  had  a  fair  trial,  Mr. 
Gladstone  concluded  that  the  government  would 
be  unworthy  of  the  confidence  of  the  country 
should  it  agree  to  the  motion  of  Mr.  Villiers. 

Mr.  Roebuck  supported  the  motion,  but  scolded 
the  League.  He  ridiculed  Gladstone's  alarm  about 
the  "drain  of  gold,"  which  he  called  an  idle  and 
groundless  fear.     He  also  said  that  in  1815,  the 


THE   DRAIN   OF  GOLD.  115 

landlords  consulted  their  own  interests  by  keeping 
up  high  prices  and  high  rents  by  means  of  a  law 
prohibiting  the  importation  of  foreign  corn.  This 
was  the  reason  for  establishing  the  monopoly,  and 
it  was  hypocrisy  to  deny  it.  Lord  Howick  also 
supported  the  motion,  although  he  declared  him- 
self in  favor  of  a  small  fixed  duty  as  a  comprom- 
ise between  conflicting  parties.  At  the  same  time 
he  was  emphatic  in  declaring  his  belief  that "  Pro- 
tection "  of  every  kind  was  a  robbery  of  the  com- 
munity. 

With  a  frank  blundering  honesty  that  amused 
everybody,  Sir  Edward  Knatchbull  described  some 
of  the  "  peculiar  burdens  "  laid  upon  the  land,  and 
which  ought  to  be  considered.  Among  these  he 
reckoned  the  duty  of  "  making  provisions  for 
younger  children,"  and  so  long  as  that  duty  re- 
mained, of  course  "  Free  Trade  was  quite  imprac- 
ticable." The  elder  children  of  the  landed  aristoc- 
racy being  provided  for  by  the  law  of  primogeni- 
ture, their  younger  children  should  be  provided 
for  by  that  furtive  system  of  taxation  known  as 
^'  Protection  to  home  industry."  It  never  occurred 
to  Sir  Edward  Knatchbull  that  it  was  the  duty  of 
land-owners  to  support  their  own  younger  children 
as  other  people  had  to  do ;  nor  did  he  conceive  it 
possible  that  society  in  England  could  ever  degen- 
erate so  low  as  to  require  those  younger  children 
to  earn  their  own  living.  The  mediaeval  sentiment 
that  a  gentleman  must  not  work,  nor  engage  in 
trade  or  in  manufacturing  still  prevailed  in  Brit- 


116  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

ain.  He  might  belong  to  the  "professions,"  but 
not  to  the  trades.  A  millionaire  tradesman  was 
not  eligible  to  membership  in  any  club  in  London, 
while  his  brother,  a  penniless  lawyer,  would  be 
welcomed  at  them  all.  Sir  Edward  Knatchbull 
was  not  an  ignorant  old  fox-hunter,  like  many  of 
his  order.  He  ranked  as  a  statesman,  and  was  in 
fact  a  cabinet  minister  at  this  time.  Lord  John 
Russell  made  great  sport  of  Sir  Edward  Knatch- 
bull's  admission  of  the  Tory  object  of  tariff  taxa- 
tion. At  the  same  time  he  declared  himself  a  Pro- 
tectionist, and  in  favor  of  a  fixed  duty.  He  must 
therefore  oppose  the  motion. 

The  debate  in  Congress  on  the  Morrison  bill  of 
1884,  is  nearly  a  transcript  of  the  debate  in  the 
House  of  Commons  on  Mr.  Villiers'  motion  offered 
in  1843,  proving  that  principles  vary  not  with  lat- 
itude, and  that  the  selfish  instincts  are  the  same 
in  every  land.  Commerce  demanded  freedom  for 
the  same  reasons  in  both  debates,  and  monopoly 
defended  itself  by  the  same  arguments.  Those 
who  have  read  the  debate  of  1884,  will  see  the  par- 
allel. In  the  House  of  Commons  Mr.  Ewart  ex- 
posed the  fallacy  that  high  prices  made  high 
wages.  He  maintained  that  an  extension  of  the 
commerce  of  the  country  enabled  people  to  con- 
sume more  largely,  and  this  would  increase  busi- 
ness and  wages  too.  Other  members  took  the 
opposite  ground,  and  maintained  that  the  English 
farmer  and  mechanic  and  laborer  were  entitled  to  a 
Protection  at  least  equal  to  the  difference  in  the 


THE  DRAIN  OF  GOLD.  117 

rate  of  wages  between  England  and  the  nations  of 
the  continent.  Mr.  Scrope  admitted  that  all  indi- 
rect taxes  on  consumption  gave  incidental  Protec- 
tion, but  that  considering  the  greatness  of  the  pub- 
lic debt  and  the  enormous  expenses  of  the  govern- 
ment, we  could  not  repeal  those  taxes,  and  there- 
fore Free  Trade  was  impracticable.  He  thought, 
however,  that  the  tariff  should  gradually  be  adapted 
to  the  principle  of  "revenue  only."  Col.  Wood 
asserted  that  the  Corn-Laws  were  mutually  bene- 
ficial to  manufacturer  and  agriculturist,  and  he 
claimed  that  the  Protectionists  were  actuated  by  no 
other  motives  than  the  good  of  the  whole  commu- 
nity. Sir  Howard  Douglass  considered  a  repeal 
of  the  Corn-Laws  fatal  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
Empire,  commercial,  manufacturing,  and  agricul- 
tural. Compelling  tho  people  to  buy  of  one  an- 
other by  the  scheme  of  Protective  taxation  was 
the  highest  wisdom,  because  it  gave  us  the  "home 
market."  With  clap-trap  ostentation  worthy  of 
our  Congress  he  exclaimed,  "  England  is  the  best 
customer  of  England,"  and  he  said  that  by  giving 
direct  Protection  to  one  industry,  you  indirectly 
give  Protection  to  some  other.  Sir  Howard  Doug- 
lass traveled  in  a  circle  like  the  lost  man  on  a  })rairie, 
a  mode  of  progression  very  popular  just  now  with 
Protectionists  in  the  American  Congress,  and  in 
every  other  Congress  too,  for  that  matter.  He  was 
well  answered  by  Mr.  Muntz  who  supported  the  mo- 
tion for  the  very  reason  that  the  Corn- Laws  and  the 
tarifi  had  been  so  arranged  that  they  protected 


118  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADj:. 

some  classes  and  not  others.  He  declared  that 
labor  was  not  protected  at  all.  If  there  was  to  be 
any  protection,  he  said,  the  poor  should  have  the 
benefit  of  it,  but  he  contended  that  the  leaning  of 
Protection  was  always  in  favor  of  the  rich.  He 
seemed  to  labor  under  a  dreamy  delusion  that  the 
Protective  System  might  be  arranged  "according  to 
the  principles  of  Christianity,"  in  favor  of  the  poor 
and  against  the  rich,  a  miracle  it  is  needless  to  say, 
that  never  has  been  and  never  will  be  achieved. 
Mr.  Muntz  declared  that  the  protected  classes  re- 
ceived so  many  millions  more  for  what  they  sold 
than  they  would  get  if  the  people  were  allowed  to 
buy  in  a  free  market,  and  he  admitted  the  claim 
of  Mr.  Gladstone  that  this  prevented  a  "  drain  of 
gold;"  he  admitted  that  this  money  was  not  lost 
to  the  country,  but  remained  in  it.  "  But,"  said 
Mr.  Muntz,  "I'll  tell  you  where  the  money  does 
go,  although  it  stays  in  the  country.  It  goes  out 
of  the  pockets  of  industry  into  the  pockets  of  idle- 
ness." He  thought,  however,  like  some  of  our 
American  statesmen,  that  it  was  useless  to  reform 
the  Tariff  until  the  "  currency  "  was  properly  fixed. 
Mr.  Milner  Gibson  contended  in  opposition  to  Sir 
Howard  Douglass  that  it  was  certain  the  Protective 
System  injured  commerce  and  manufactures,  while 
it  was  not  at  all  certain  that  it  benefited  agricul- 
ture. Mr.  Gibson  afterwards  became  one  of  the 
great  leaders  of  the  Free  Trade  revolution,  and  his 
words  in  this  debate  had  peculiar  weight,  because 
he  did  not  belong  to  the  "  Manchester  class."    He 


THE  DRAIN  OF  GOLD.  119 

was  not  in  trade,  but  was  himself  a  Suffolk  land- 
owner. 

In  this  debate  the  wisdom  of  biting  off  your 
nose  to  spite  your  face  was  maintained  by  some 
ignorant  statesmen  who  knew  no  better,  and  by 
some  intelligent  statesmen  like  Mr.  Gladstone,  who 
did  know  better.  It  was  contended  that  if  foreign 
countries  would  not  open  their  ports  to  Birtish 
manufactures,  England  should  close  her  ports 
against  their  wheat  and  bacon.  That  the  English 
people  were  suffering  for  want  of  food  made  no 
difference.  They  should  maintain  "reciprocity," 
even  at  the  price  of  starvation. 

The  "reciprocity"  theory  did  good  service  to  the 
ministers  in  this  debate.  Whether  or  not  they 
believed  in  it  themselves  is  doubtful ;  perhaps  some 
of  them  did.  It  is  quite  evident  that  a  large  ma- 
jority of  the  House  of  Commons  had  not  yet  learned 
that  it  is  a  good  thing  to  buy  in  the  cheapest  mar- 
ket, even  if  you  cannot  sell  in  the  dearest,  and  so 
they  kept  ringing  the  changes  on  "  reciprocity."  Mr. 
Christopher  maintained  that  to  adopt  Free  Trade 
without  any  guarantee  of  "reciprocity"  from  for- 
eign countries  would  be  useless  to  the  manufact- 
urers, and  ruinous  to  the  agriculturists. 

One  ardent  member,  Mr.  Thornley,  had  become 
so  zealously  interested  in  the  "  reciprocity" 
plan,  that  he  just  stepped  over  to  America 
to  have  a  talk  with  the  President  of  the  United 
States  about  it.  It  is  a  mortifying  fact  that  the 
President  filled  him  full  of  lies  and  false  promises, 


120  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

and  then  sent  him  home  again.  Mr.  Thornley 
told  the  House  that  if  the  English  would  adopt 
Free  Trade,  the  Americans  would  immediately  do 
the  same ;  that  Mr.  Tyler  told  him  so.  Mr.  Tyler 
also  told  him  that  the  only  obstacle  to  an  extended 
trade  between  the  two  countries  was  the  English 
Corn-Law.  All  that  was  necessary  to  establish 
*' reciprocity,"  was  for  the  English  to  begin, 

Mr.  Cobden  said,  "The  law  inflicts  scarcity 
upon  the  people  or  it  does  nothing;  and  the 
condition  of  the  agricultural  laborer  is  the 
severest  condem  nation  of  the  law."  He  turned 
Sir  Edward  Knatchbull's  unlucky  argument 
against  him,  and  all  the  landlord  class.  He 
said,  "If  the  object  of  the  law  is  to  make 
provision  for  the  younger  sons  of  the  aris- 
tocracy, and  effect  marriage  settlements  for 
their  daughters,  what  benefit  does  the  farmer 
derive  from  that?"  He  declared  that  the  only 
way  to  raise  the  price  of  corn  was  by  making  it 
scarce,  and  that  this  was  the  object  of  the  law.  He 
declared  that  no  party  had  the  right  to  make  the 
food  of  the  people  scarce.  To  ordinary  minds  these 
propositions  appear  to  be  self-evident,  and  yet  there 
was  a  great  party  in  England  that  denied  them 
and  maintained  that  the  food  of  the  people  ought 
to  be  made  dear  in  order  to  protect  the  farmer 
against  the  cheaper  labor,  the  richer  soil,  and  the 
finer  climate  of  other  lands.  Unhappily,  this  party 
controlled  the  House  of  Commons,  as  the  division 
showed,  for  the  Free  Traders  were  beaten  by  the 


THE   DRAIN   OF   GOLD.  121 

frightful  majority  of  three  hundred  and  eighty-one 
to  one  hundred  and  twenty-five. 

In  the  month  of  June  the  subject  came  up  again 
in  a  discussion  as  to  the  relative  merits  of  Twee- 
dledum and  Tweedledee.  Lord  John  Russell 
moved  to  go  into  committee  to  take  into  consider- 
ation the  laws  relating  to  the  importation  of  for- 
eign grain.  As  he  was  at  that  time  a  Protectionist 
himself,  and  differed  with  Peel  only  in  preferring 
a  fixed  duty  to  the  "  sliding  scale,"  his  motion 
had  no  practical  value  whatever,  except  to  keep 
debate  alive,  and  on  this  ground  Mr  Villiers 
declared  that  he  should  support  it.  It  gave  an 
opportunity  for  a  repetition  of  the  old  arguments 
against  the  Corn-Laws,  and  Mr.  Gladstone  an- 
swered them  again  as  before.  That  the  Whig  doc- 
trine of  Protection  differed  little  from  the  Tory 
doctrine  was  curiously  shown  by  the  speech  of 
Lord  John  Russell.  He  exhibited  the  same  dread 
of  abundance  that  Mr.  Gladstone  had  shown  a  few 
weeks  before.  Under  the  working  of  the  sliding 
scale,  he  said,  that  just  prior  to  the  harvest,  when 
the  farmer  was  in  anticipation  of  a  goo.l  price  for 
his  produce, "  the  deluge  of  foreign  corn  was  poured 
in,"  and  he  found  himself  disappointed.  "  The 
blame  of  these  inundations  of  corn  was  attributa- 
ble to  reckless  speculators,  but  speculators,  he 
trusted,  there  would  always  be;  and  if  they  were 
sometimes  reckless  it  was  the  law  that  made  them 
so."  Let  not  the  American  reformers  be  dis- 
couraged at  the  ignorance  of  political  economy 


122  HISTORY   OF   FREE    TRADE. 

displayed  by  their  own  statesmen.  Let  them  re- 
flect that  Lord  John  Russell  when  he  talked  in 
that  benighted  way  was  a  mature  statesman  fifty- 
one  years  old,  the  leader  of  a  great  party,  and  a 
future  Prime  Minister  of  England.  Yet  he  had  an 
economic  use  for  speculators  in  grain ;  he  spoke 
of  a  "  deluge  of  corn  "  as  if  it  were  some  new  disas- 
trous flood ;  and  he  arraigned  the  guilty  delin- 
quent upon  whose  shoulders  rested  the  "blame"  of 
inundating  the  country  with  food.  Truthfully 
did  Mr,  Gladstone  in  replying  to  him,  say,  "  There 
appears  to  be  little  difference  between  the  noble 
Lord  and  myself  as  to  the  Protection  to  be 
extended  to  existing  interests." 

This  debate  served  the  useful  purpose  of  draw- 
ing from  the  government  the  positive  avowal  that 
no  change  in  the  Corn-Laws  would  be  permitted. 
Mr.  Gladstone  declared  that  the  measures  of  last 
year  were  a  virtual  contract  between  the  govern- 
ment and  the  agricultural  interest,  and  that  it 
would  be  dishonorable  to  disturb  it.  This  loving 
debate  between  the  Whigs  and  the  Tories  as  to 
whether  a  fixed  duty  or  a  sliding  scale  was  most 
efiective  in  protecting  the  aristocracy,  was  rudely 
broken  into  by  blunt  old  Hume,  who  declared  that 
all  "Protection  "  was  spoliation  and  injustice,  and 
ought  to  be  abolished.  Sir  Robert  Peel  declared 
that  the  measure  of  last  year  was  a  "  compromise" 
between  all  the  interests  concerned,  and  which 
was  assented  to  by  the  agriculturists  on  the  faith 
of  its  being  adhered  to,  therefore  it  was  his  deter- 


THE   DRAIN   OF   GOLD.  123 

mination  to  maintain  the  law  of  last  session.  Not* 
withstanding  this  "determination,"  there  was  a 
fidgety  unrest,  among  the  monopolists,  for  fear  that 
the  ministers  would  be  again  driven  from  their 
policy  by  the  Anti-Com-Law  League.  The  motion 
was  defeated  by  a  majority  of  ninety-nine. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 
OVER-PRODUCTION. 

English  Prejudice  in  Favor  of  Protection — Reason  for  it — 
Fear  of  Foreign  Competition — Dread  of  Abundance — 
Scarcity  Makes  "Work—  Over-Production — The  Working 
People  of  England — Farm  Laborers — City  Workmen — 
Their  Characteristics — Chartist  Opposition  to  the  League 
— Low  Wages — The  Charter. 

Thus  far  we  have  chiefly  spoken  of  the  Free 
Trade  struggle  as  it  was  fought  in  Parhament  up 
to  the  summer  of  1843.  Outside,  the  contest  was 
sharper  still,  and  far  more  vigorous.  The  work 
of  the  reformers  was  harder  too.  A  whole  people 
had  to  be  aroused,  instructed,  convinced.  An 
irresistible  public  opinion  must  be  created  without 
which  all  efibrts  in  Parliament  would  be  in  vain. 
The  upper  classes  of  the  English  people  were 
Protectionists  from  interest,  the  lower  classes  from 
prejudice.  The  middle  classes  though  largely 
Protectionists  were  divided,  but  amongst  them  lay 
the  strength  of  the  Free  Traders. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  English  lower 
classes  were  Protectionists.  All  their  prejudices 
were  in  favor  of  restricting  competition.  The 
Englishman  was  exclusive,  partly  by  nature,  and 
partly  because  of  geographical  conditions.  His 
island  being  cut  off  by  the  sea  from  the  continent 

124 


OVER-PRODUCTION.  125 

of  Europe,  he  became  a  sea-girt  sort  of  personage 
himself.  He  was  boastful  and  conceited.  He 
displayed  a  rude  contempt  towards  all  foreigners, 
never  admitting  that  any  change  of  latitude  or 
longitude  could  make  a  foreigner  of  him.  Even 
in  Paris  he  complacently  regarded  all  the  French- 
men he  met  upon  the  Boulevards  as  "  Foreigners." 
The  extravagance  of  the  comic  opera  was  gen- 
uine poetry  to  him.  He  seriously  believed  that 
it  was  "greatly  to  his  credit"  that  he  was  an 
Englishman ;  and  he  considered  it  highly  meri- 
torious that  "  in  spite  of  all  temptations  to  belong 
to  other  nations,  he  remained  an  Englishman." 
He  was  always  bidding  "  defiance  to  the  world." 
He  christened  his  war  ships  "  Bulldog,"  "Vixen," 
"Spitfire,"  "Destruction,"  "Devastation,"  "Ter- 
rible," "  Vengeance,"  "  Conquerer,"  and  similar 
pet  names.  His  great  chest  would  pant  like  a 
blacksmith's  bellows  as  he  roared  in  the  ears  of 
all  mankind  his  unpolite  refrain,  "  Britannia  rules 
the  waves."  He  thought  that  the  people  of  other 
nations  had  but  little  to  eat ;  that  the  Frenchman 
lived  on  frogs,  the  Italian  on  maccaroni,  and  the 
German  on  an  inferior  quality  of  cabbage.  He 
was  a  natural  Protectionist. 

The  lower  classes  of  the  English  people  were 
much  like  the  lower  classes  of  some  other  people, 
insanely  jealous  of  those  whom  they  regarded  as 
lower  yet  than  themselves.  In  America  it  may 
be  the  negro  or  the  Chinaman.  In  England  it 
was  the  frog-eating  Frenchman,  the  frugal  Dutch- 


126  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

man,  who  was  too  mean  to  squander  all  his  wages, 
or  the  barbarian  Russian  who  lived  on  tallow, 
whose  clothes  c©st  him  nothing,  the  skin  of  an  ox 
furnishing  a  complete  outfit  for  a  year.  Any 
demagogue  could  easily  arouse  the  enthusiasm  of 
the  lower  classes  by  denouncing  Free  Traders  as 
an  unpatriotic  set  who  were  seeking  to  subject  the 
noble  British  workman  to  a  ruinous  competition 
with  the  "  pauper  workman "  of  the  continent. 
It  was  a  part  of  the  stock  business  of  Tory 
statesmen  at  every  hustings  in  the  Kingdom  to 
glorify  the  wisdom  of  that  policy  which  was  to 
make  England  "independent  of  foreigners," 
especially  in  the  matter  of  meat  and  flour.  Even 
enlightened  statesmen  like  Peel  and  Gladstone  did 
not  disdain  to  use  this  narrow  argument  in  the 
House  of  Commons  itself 

In  addition  to  their  insular  prejudices  the  En- 
glish working  classes  believed  in  the  blessings  of 
scarcity,  and  the  miseries  of  abundance.  They 
lived  constantly  in  fear  of  an  impossible  dragon 
called  "over-production."  They  regarded  ma- 
chinery as  their  chief  enemy  because  it  saved 
labor,  and  filled  shops  and  warehouses  with  goods. 
It  was  the  grimy  coal-fed  monster,  breathing  smoke 
and  flame  whose  offspring  was  "  over-production." 
They  opposed  railroads  because  of  their  labor- 
saving  tendency,  and  many  of  them  could  tell  the 
exact  number  of  men  thrown  "  out  of  work," 
between  London  and  Bristol,  by  the  Great  Western 
Railway  alone.     There  were  so  many  stage  coach 


OVER-PRODUCTION.  127 

men  and  guards,  so  many  wagoners  whose  busy 
teams  moved  the  merchandise  of  the  country,  so 
many  inns  where  the  stages  stopped  for  dinner  or 
supper,  and  to  change  horses,  involving  the  em- 
ployment of  so  many  ostlers,  cooks,  waiters,  and 
other  people.  Then  look  at  the  blacksmiths, 
whose  business  it  was  to  shoe  the  stage  horses, 
and  the  wagon  horses ;  look  at  the  harness- 
makers,  whose  business  it  was  to  make  the  har- 
ness for  them.  Think  of  the  ruin  of  the  inn- 
keepers themselves,  to  say  nothing  of  the  loss  to 
the  farmers  and  stock-raisers,  who  would  no 
longer  have  a  market  for  coach  horses,  or  wagon 
horses,  or  for  the  oats  to  feed  them.  It  was  in 
vain  to  point  out  the  army  of  men  that  the  rail- 
roads would  throw  "  into  work,"  the  comforts 
and  conveniences  they  would  multiply  to  all  the 
people.  These  advantages  were  too  abstract  and 
remote.  The  injuries  were  direct,  near,  and 
palpable. 

In  the  political  economy  of  the  English  artisan, 
all  destruction  of  property  was  a  blessing,  because 
to  replace  the  property  gave  employment  to  work- 
ingmen.  The  burning  down  of  a  block  of  build- 
ings w^s  a  providential  gift  because  the  houses 
liad  to  be  rebuilt,  thereby  giving  employment  to 
l)ricklayers  and  carpenters.  About  this  time  a 
remarkable  hailstorm  visited  London.  Every  ex- 
l)Osed  pane  of  glass  was  broken  by  the  hailstones. 
This  was  regarded  as  a  merciful  dispensation, 
because  it  made  a  scarcity  of  glass  in    London. 


128  HISTORY    OF   FREE   TRADE. 

It  was  merely  a  sum  in  simple  addition  to  show 
the  value  of  the  storm.  It  was  evident  that  the 
glassmakers  and  the  glaziers  would  make  a  good 
thing  out  of  it,  and  the  money  they  earned  would 
be  spent  for  the  comforts  and  necessaries  of  life. 
The  tailor  and  the  shoemaker  would  get  some  of 
it,  and  the  butcher,  the  baker,  and  the  candlestick- 
maker.  It  was  useless  to  explain  that  this  money 
was  drawn  from  other  employments  of  industry, 
and  that  to  the  full  value  of  the  glass  destroyed  it 
was  a  total  loss  to  the  community.  This,  too,  was 
abstract ;  it  was  like  complex  fractions  to  scholars 
who  were  not  yet  out  of  long  division. 

All  public  improvements  that  lessened  wear  and 
tear  were  bitterly  opposed  by  those  primitive 
economists.  The  wooden  pavement  was  a  dan- 
gerous innovation,  because  if  it  should  be  gener- 
ally used  in  a  great  city  like  London,  it  was  easy 
to  see  that  the  wear  and  tear  of  horse-slioes  and 
wagon  wheels  would  be  greatly  lessened,  and 
blacksmiths  would  be  thrown  "  out  of  work."  A 
street  sweeping  machine  invented  about  this  time 
had  to  be  protected  by  the  police,  as  a  mob  of 
scavengers  were  determined  to  prevent  its  use.  It 
was  claimed  that  the  machine  could  do  the  work 
of  twenty  men.  The  scavengers,  of  course,  made 
their  living  by  dirt ;  the  more  dirt,  the  more  work 
for  them.  Here  was  a  machine  that  caused  an 
"  over-production "  of  cleanliness,  and  true  to 
their  Protectionist  ideas  they  proceeded  to  de- 
strov  it. 


OVER-PRODUCTION.  129 

There  is  nothing  surprising  in  all  this.  An 
ignorant  people  only  reason  from  first  appearances 
to  the  immediate  and  visible  result.  To  the  un- 
thinking workingmen  of  England,  the  first  effect 
of  a  labor-saving  machine  was  to  throw  somebody 
"  out  of  work,"  the  first  effect  of  the  hailstorm 
was  to  throw  somebody  "into  work,"  therefore 
they  looked  the  machine  as  an  enemy,  upon  the 
storm  as  a  friend.  In  like  manner  the  first  effect 
of  a  cargo  of  merchandise  imported  from  a  foreign 
country  was  to  make  abundance  and  to  lessen  the 
demand  for  labor  in  that  class  of  goods,  therefore 
they  were  in  favor  of  promoting  scarcity  by  a 
high  protective  tariff  that  should  compel  those 
goods  to  stay  across  the  sea. 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  they  would 
voluntarily  explore  the  depths  of  political  science, 
and  thus  obtain  a  knowledge  of  the  true  prin- 
ciples of  social  and  political  economy  any  more 
than  to  expect  them  to  saw  wood  for  pleasure. 
Their  minds  soon  became  tired  when  not  aided  by 
visible  object  lessons,  and  the  men  who  could 
appeal  to  their  mutual  experiences  had  a  great  ad- 
vantage over  the  abstract  reasoner,  no  matter  liow 
well  built  his  logical  structure  was.  Often  in  the 
coffee  houses,  the  club  rooms,  and  otlier  places 
where  workingmen  used  to  meet  and  discuss  the 
jiroblems  of  iKe  Englisli  political  and  social 
system,  the  Protectionist  champion,  confused  and 
overwhelmed  by  the  reasoning  of  his  Free  Trade 
antagonist,    would    extricate   himself  l^y    an    in- 


130  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

genious  recourse  to  the  "  over-production  "  hob- 
goblin. "What  caused  the  distress,"  he  would 
shout,  "  in  the  hard  winter  of  1835  ?  "  "  Over- 
production." "  What  shut  down  the  Birmingham 
forges  in  1836?"  "Over-production."  "What 
stopped  the  wheels  in  Lancashire  and  Yorkshire 
in  1837  ?  "  "  Over-production."  "  What  sent  the 
shoe  makers  of  Northampton  on  the  tramp  in 
1838  ?  "  "  Over-production ;  "  and  so  on  to  the 
end  of  the  chapter.  It  was  certain  that  among 
the  audience  were  some  of  the  fancied  victims  of 
over-production,  and  all  the  rest  were  sympa- 
thisers. It  was  of  no  use  to  explain  to  them  that 
what  they  called  "  over-production  "  was  nothing 
but  the  blessing  of  plenty,  which,  if  not  hindered 
by  Protective  legislation,  would  soon  diffuse  itseJf 
throughout  all  the  land,  sharing  its  benefits  among 
all  the  people,  acting  and  re-acting  upon  every 
member  of  the  community.  To  comprehend  this 
required  a  mental  efibrt,  and  that  was  labor. 
They  were  not  ready  to  think  just  then,  and  the 
discomfited  Free  Trader  would  take  his  seat  leav- 
ing the  victory  to  his  adversary.  The  working- 
men  of  England  had  literally  to  be  educated  in 
sounder  principles,  to  be  taught  like  children 
from  the  alphabet  of  politics  upwards  until  they 
were  forced  to  throw  aside  their  prejudices  to 
make  room  for  the  knowledge  that  was  crowding 
itself  upon  them.  "  If  you  bring  the  truth  home 
to  a  man,"  said  Cobden,  "he  must  embrace  it." 
To  bring  the  truth  home  to  the  people  of  England 


OVER-PRODUCTION.  131 

became  the  duty  of  the  League.  Let  us  see  how 
well  the  work  was  done. 

The  working  people^  of  England  were  divivled 
into  two  classes,  the  city  operatives  and  the  rural 
population.  They  differed  from  each  other  in 
dress,  in  dialect,  in  manners,  and  in  personal 
appearance.  The  city  workman  was  quick  of 
movement  and  of  great  mental  activity,  the  farm 
laborer  was  heavy,  dull,  and  slow.  He  aspired  to 
nothing  higher  than  eating,  drinking,  and  rest. 
His  ideal  of  superlative  happiness  was  written  in 
a  song  he  was  very  fond  of  singing,  the  refrain  of 
which  was  something  like  the  following, 

"  If  I  war  the  King  I  would  eat  fat  bacon, 
And  swing  upon  a  gate  all  day." 

Although  the  Corn-Laws  were  made  for  the 
"  Protection  "  of  agricultural  industry,  the  tiller 
of  the  soil  was  overworked  and  underpaid.  His 
life  was  passed  in  abject  poverty.  He  had  no 
more  hope  than  the  team  he  drove.  He  was  still 
in  fact — though  not  in  law — a  serf;  and  he  went 
with  the  land.  Whoever  bought  that  bought 
him.  In  1843  the  traveler  in  the  West  Riding  of 
Yorkshire,  meeting  a  rustic  with  a  drove  of  hogs 
in  front  of  him,  looked  for  the  brass  collar  around 
his  neck,  expecting  to  read  upon  it  the  old  familiar 
legend  preserved  by  Scott,  "  Gurth,  the  sou  of 
Beowolf,  is  the  born  thrall  of  Cedric  of  Rother- 
wood."  The  brass  collar  was  not  there,  but  the 
swineherd  was  as  much  a  "thrall"  as  was  his 
ancestor  in  the  days  of  Wilfred  of  Ivanhoe.     Less 


132  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

than  sixty  miles  from  London,  and  within  hear- 
ing of  the  bells  of  the  Cambridge  colleges,  the  rough- 
shod clown  thrashed  his  master's  grain  with  a 
flail,  as  his  forefathers  did  in  the  days  of  Alfred 
the  Great.  He  knew  no  more  than  they,  and  his 
dialect  was  very  much  like  theirs.  Of  the  politics 
of  England  he  knew  about  as  much  as  he  did  of 
the  politics  of  Japan.  Although  great  in  numbers 
the  agricultural  laborers  contributed  literally 
nothing  to  that  public  opinion  which  is  so  im- 
portant an  element  in  the  government  of  England. 
When  the  Free  Trade  missionaries  went  amongst 
them  they  were  mobbed  and  pelted  out  of  the 
villages  by  the  "  yeomanry  "  and  the  agents  of 
the  landlords.  They  were  treated  very  much  as 
Abolition  lecturers  would  be  treated  by  the  Caro- 
lina planters  in  the  days  before  the  war. 

It  was  different  with  the  working  people  in  the 
towns.  They  were  restless,  ambitious,  and  dis- 
contented. They  mingled  much  together,  and 
they  discussed  political  and  social  problems. 
They  formed  clubs,  benefit  societies,  and  trades- 
unions.  They  attended  political  meetings  and 
debating  clubs ;  they  read  a  great  deal,  and  they 
could  furnish  more  stump  orators  to  the  hundred 
men  than  even  we  can  furnish  in  America.  There 
was  always  a  speaker  on  hand,  and  an  audience. 
It  is  a  prevalent  opinion  that  the  "  stump  orator  " 
is  peculiarly  an  American  production,  but  this  is 
a  mistake.  He  abounds  in  England,  and  there  his 
gab   flows   on  forever.     It  is  not  confined  as  in 


OVER-PRODUCTION.  13^ 

America  to  the  election  season ;  it  flourishes  at 
all  seasons.  It  is  perennial  in  England,  and 
always  fresh  and  blooming.  One  reason  for  this 
is  that  the  drinking  places  in  England  are  also 
places  of  resort.  They  are  not  "  saloons  "  as  in 
America,  merely  drinking  places,  and  nothing 
more.  They  are  what  their  name  expresses, 
"  public  houses."  They  have  rooms  apart  from 
the  bar,  and  in  those  rooms  men  sit  down 
and  drink  their  beer.  There  they  smoke  their 
pipes  and  talk.  Besides  the  "  tap-room  "  and  the 
"  parlor,"  which  are  promiscuous  and  belong  to 
everybody,  there  are  rooms  up-stairs  for  society 
meetings,  clubs,  and  exclusive  gatherings.  Here 
business,  debate,  and  conviviality  mingle  together. 
The  orator  fires  away  while  the  audience  drink 
their  beer  and  smoke.  If  the  English  public- 
houses  have  rendered  any  compensation  for  the 
mischief  they  have  made,  it  must  be  in  furnishing 
those  rooms  for  association,  and  for  the  discussion 
of  public  questions.  They  have  been  the  nurseries 
of  the  stump  orators  of  England.  For  the  reason 
above  given  it  was  necessar  ly  in  the  towns  that 
the  principal  work  of  the  League  was  done. 

At  first  the  League  met  with  opposition  even  in 
the  towns ;  and  its  meetings  were  often  interrupted 
by  hostile  mobs,  and  sometimes  broken  up.  The 
Chartists  insisted  that  a  radical  reform  of  the 
government  itself  should  be  attempted  before 
economic  changes.  When  universal  sufi'rage  and 
a  free  ballot  were  obtained,  then  would  be  time 


134  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE, 

enough  to  repeal  the  Corn- Laws;  and  they  de- 
manded that  the  League  should  unite  with  them. 
Besides,  the  jealousy  of  foreign  competition  was 
not  easily  removed ;  "  foreign  pauper  labor  "  was 
still  a  phrase  to  conjure  with ;  and  there  was  a 
prevalent  suspicion  that  the  object  of  the  League 
was  to  lower  the  wages  of  the  workingmen.  In 
1843  The  Quarterly  Review  made  the  accusation  in 
these  words,  "  The  first  great  object  of  the  League 
was  and  is  the  lowering  of  wages."  This  view  of 
it  had  prevailed  from  the  very  first  organization 
of  the  League,  and  often  in  the  Free  Trade  meet- 
ings the  Chartists  were  able  to  defeat  the  Free 
Trade  resolutions  and  carry  resolutions  of  their 
own.  In  1849  there  was  a  great  Anti-Corn-Law 
meeting  at  Rochdale,  at  which  Mr.  Bright  offered 
a  Free  Trade  resolution,  and  supported  it  with 
one  of  his  most  convincing  speeches;  but  Mr. 
James  Taylor,  a  Chartist,  proposed  an  amendment 
to  the  effect  that  before  agitating  for  a  repeal  of  the 
Corn-Laws  the  people  should  obtain  possession  of 
their  political  rights.  The  amendment  was 
adopted.  In  Smith's  Life  of  John  Bright,  the 
biographer  in  relating  this  incident,  remarks, 
"The  amendment  was  carried,  the  Chartists  at 
that  moment  having  the  ear  of  the  working 
classes  in  the  chief  town  of  Lancashire  and  York- 
shire." In  the  position  they  took  on  that  ques- 
tion the  Chartists  were  wrong.  The  result  has 
demonstrated  that  a  hungry  people,  while  physi- 
cally they  may  be  more  dangerous,  are  morally 


OVER-PRODUCTION.  135 

not  half  so  strong  as  the  same  people  when  well 
fed.  The  improved  condition  of  the  working 
men  of  England  under  a  Free  Trade  policy  has 
strengthened  their  moral  influence  so  greatly  that 
now  the  Charter  is  almost  won.  Henry  Vincent, 
one  of  the  founders  of  the  Chartist  party  and  its 
greatest  orator,  on  the  occasion  of  his  last  visit  to 
America,  said  to  the  writer  of  this  book,  "  We 
shall  soon  have  the  suffrage  in  England,  where 
any  man  who  is  fit  to  use  it  can  reach  forth  his 
hand  and  take  it." 

One  paragraph  as  to  the  Chartists  for  the  infor- 
mation of  the  American  reader.  The  Chartists 
were  a  democratic,  and  to  some  extent,  a  revolu- 
tionary body,  seeking  a  radical  change  in  the 
political  constitution  of  England.  Their  demands 
were  embodied  in  a  document  called  the  Charter 
containing  the  following  six  points,  1.  Universal 
Suffrage;  2.  Vote  by  Ballot;  3.  Annual  Parlia- 
ments ;  4  Equal  Electoral  Districts ;  5.  No  Prop- 
erty Qualification  for  Members  of  Parliament, 
and  6.  Payment  of  Members.  Of  these  it  will  be 
seen  that  only  the  first  and  second  are  important 
principles,  the  others  relating  merely  to  matters  of 
detail  and  expediency.  The  second  and  fifth  have 
been  obtained,  and  the  suffrage  has  been  so  greatly 
extended  by  different  laws,  and  will  be  so  much 
further  extended  by  Mr.  Gladstone's  bill  now 
pending,  that  we  may  hope  to  see  in  1884  the 
English  ballot  where  Mr.  Vincent  said  it  would 
be,  witliiu  the  reach  of  every  man  with  enterprise 


136  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

enough  to  lift  his  hand  and  take  it.  In  the 
years  of  the  Free  Trade  struggle  the  Chartists 
included  within  their  ranks  two-thirds  of  all  the 
workingmen  of  England  and  Scotland,  outside 
the  farm  laborers.  They  had  no  strength  in  Ire- 
land because  Mr.  O'Connell,  who  was  then  the 
paramount  leader  of  the  Irish  people,  kept  them 
from  joining  the  party.  Although  he  was  one  of 
the  original  committee  of  ten  that  framed  the 
Charter,  he  had  become  alarmed  at  the  revolu- 
tionary character  of  the  Chartists,  and  had 
abandoned  them.  It  will  readily  be  seen  that  the 
opposition  of  so  large  a  body  as  the  Chartist  party 
was  a  serious  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  League. 
It  may  be  acknowledged  here  also,  that  the  leaders 
of  the  Chartist  party  were  jealous  of  the  leaders 
of  the  League.  The  Annual  Register  for  1839, 
speaking  of  the  Chartists  and  their  opposition  to 
the  repeal  of  the  Corn-Laws,  says,  "in  their 
opinion  any  relaxation  of  the  duties  upon  the 
importation  of  corn  would,  by  lowering  the  rate 
of  wages  turn  to  the  profit  of  the  employer  alone." 


CHAPTER  IX. 
WAGES. 

The  Quarterly  Review  Attacks  the  League — Blackwood  on 
Wages — The  Com- Laws  of  no  Consequence  to  Working- 
men — The  Kule  of  Wages  as  Understood  in  England — 
The  Big  Loaf  Argument — The  League  Schoolmaster — 
Education  of  the  People — Mr.  Bright  Elected  for  Dur- 
ham— Growth  of  the  Agitation — City  of  London  Elec- 
tion. 

The  "  low  wages "  delusion  was  kept  alive  by 
all  the  Tory  journals,  and  by  all  the  opponents  of 
revenue  reform.  Here  is  a  specimen  argument 
taken  from  The  Quarterly  Review  for  December  1842 : 
"  But  even  if  Mr.  Cobden  could  persuade  us  that 
his  zeal  was  not  strongly  imbued  with  political 
ambition,  can  he  deny,  though  he  seems  inclined 
to  conceal  that  he  and  his  associates  were  first 
prompted  and  are  still  stimulated  in  their  warfare 
against  the  Corn-Laws  by  a  more  ignoble  interest — 
mere  mercantile  gain — the  profit  of  the  mills  f  This 
it  is  that  supplies  the  source  and  feeds  the  current 
of  this  agitation.  This  is  the  secret  head  of  this 
muddy  and  inundating  Nile.  The  leaders  of  the 
League,  not  satisfied  with  the  great  and  sometimes 
enormous  fortunes  that  have  been  realized  under  the 
present  system  of  food  and  wages,  are  endeavoring 
by  the  undue  influences  of  confederation,  intimi- 

137 


138  »  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

dation,  and  deception — to  reduce  wages  still  lower 
— to  the  great  injury  of  the  working  classes,  the 
ruin  of  the  agricultural  interest,  and  to  no  imme- 
diate profit  but  their  own."  Then  in  order  to  make 
its  criticism  of  the  League  still  more  impressive,  it 
condensed  the  whole  argument  into  a  mathemat- 
ical formula.  It  said,  "  The  pretense  that  those 
mill-owners  are  endeavoring  to  lower  the  price  of 
hresid  for  the  sake  of  the  workmen  is  so  absurd  that 
we  really  know  not  how  to  expose  it  more  forcibly 
than  by  four  words,  cheap  bread=low  wages."  The 
Review  concluded  a  very  bitter  article  against  the 
League  by  insinuating  that  it  was  a  disloyal  and 
illegal  confederacy.  It  said,  "  We  pronounce  the 
existence  of  such  associations  disgraceful  to  our 
national  character,  and  wholly  incompatible  either 
with  the  internal  peace  and  commercial  prosperity 
of  the  country — or  in  the  highest  meaning  of  the 

words,  THE  SAFETY  OF  THE   STATE." 

While  some  of  the  protection  journals  confined 
their  opposition  to  angry  denunciations  of  the 
League,  others  did  that  and  more.  They  tried  not 
only  to  arouse  the  prejudices  and  inflame  the  pas- 
sions, but  to  convince  the  reason  also.  Of  this 
class  was  Blackwood's  Magazine^  perhaps  the  ablest 
advocate  and  defender  of  the  Corn-Laws  in  all  Great 
Britain.  To  be  sure  there  was  much  sophistry  in 
its  argument,  and  no  doubt  it  said  a  great  deal  that 
it  did  not  believe;  but  after  all,  it  was  argument, 
most  of  it  plausible,  and  much  of  it  very  hard  to 
answer,  because  at  that  time  experience  had  not 


WAGES.  139 

demonstrated  the  mistakes  of  it.  In  November, 
1838,  Blachmqd  reasoned  thus 

"  Is  it  then  really  certain  that  an  unrestricted 
importation  of  foreign  grain  would  in  the  long  run 
lower  the  money  price  of  provisions  to  the  British 
laborers?  ....  It  might  at  first  ....  We  have 
little  doubt  that  the  result  in  the  end  would 
be  that  the  price  of  subsistence  would  be  raised  to 
the  British  consumer.  The  first  efiect  would 
be  to  cheapen.  That  would  throw  the  land 
out  of  cultivation.  Home  production  would  be 
small,  and  then  of  course  the  price  of  the  foreign 
product  would  be  increased." 

The  above  argument  is  worth  study,  because 
although  falsified  by  actual  experiment  in  England, 
it  is  just  as  good  as  new  in  America.  It  was  as 
confidently  proclaimed  in  Congress  in  1884,  as  it 
was  by  Blackwood  in  1838.  All  that  the  Ameri- 
can reader  has  to  do  with  these  quotations  is  to 
change  the  word  "grain"  into  "iron,"  "wool," 
"  crockery  "  or  whatever  it  is,  and  the  Tory  argu- 
ments of  forty  years  ago  are  immediately  repro- 
duced in  the  "  Protection  "  reasoning  of  1884,  in 
the  United  States.  Any  person  can  recognize  them 
instantly  who  reads  the  debates  in  Congress,  or  the 
editorials  in  our  Protectionist  newspapers.  The 
writer  of  the  article  from  which  the  above  quotation 
is  taken,  ingeniously  hand-cuffs  wages  and  rent  to- 
gether, and  pretends  that  they  must  rise  and  fall  to- 
gether. He  then  says,  "  There  would  be  no  increase 
of  supply,  but  we  should  get  from  foreign  countries 


140  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TADE. 

instead  of  raising  it  in  England.  That's  all."  The 
echo  of  this  exploded  argument  is  repeatedly  heard 
in  the  United  States,  although  the  sound  of  it  has 
long  been  dead  in  England.  Instead  of  saying 
fields  will  be  thrown  out  of  cultivation  we  say  fur- 
naces will  be  "  blown  out,"  mills  will  be  "  stopped," 
and  then  the  "  foreigner  "  having  destroyed  our 
home  production  will  raise  his  prices,  so  that  by 
lowering  the  tariff  we  make  only  temporary  cheap- 
ness, to  be  followed  in  the  end  by  higher  prices, 
which  we  pay  to  the  "  foreigner  "  instead  of  to  our 
own  people.  The  most  subtle  analysis  could  not 
convince  the  English  of  the  fallacy  of  this  argu- 
ment. They  would  not  be  convinced  except  by 
practical  demonstration.  They  laugh  at  it 
now. 

Mere  speculative  guesses  were  propounded  by 
the  Protectionists  as  though  they  were  axioms 
that  could  not  be  disputed.  For  instance  Blackwood, 
in  that  same  article,  "The  fundamental  error  of 
the  opponents  of  the  Corn- Laws  on  this  point  is 
that  they  suppose  two  things  that  can  never  co- 
exist, viz.,  permanently  reduced  prices,  and  a  per- 
manently overflowing  supply."  This  dogmatic 
mode  of  expression  silenced  many  disputants  by 
the  sheer  impudence  of  it.  Thirty-five  years  ex- 
perience has  proven  that  permanent  cheapness,  and 
permanent  supply  can  and  do  co  -exist.  That  prices 
vary  is  true,  for  they  are  afiected  by  a  hundred 
accidents,  but  the  cheapness  of  bread  and  meat  in 
England  has  been  permanent  ever  since  the  repeal 


WAGES.  141 

of  the  Corn- Laws,  and  the  supply  has  been  abund- 
ant and  permanent.  Besides,  the  ability  to  buy  is 
an  important  ingredient  of  cheapness,  and  to  in- 
crease this  ability  was  one  of  the  avowed  objects  of 
the  Free  Traders.  Mr.  Cobden  repeatedly  said 
that  the  mere  nominal  price  of  an  article  was  a 
secondary  consideration  if  the  consumers  of  it 
were  prosperous  and  had  plenty  of  money  to  pay 
for  it. 

Following  the  same  train  of  reasoning  the  writer 
in  Blackwood  goes  on  to  say, "  The  impetus  given  to 
foreign  agriculture  would  immediately  and  consid- 
erably lower  the  price  of  foreign  grain,  while  the 
same  causes  would  in  the  same  proportions  lower 
that  of  British.  The  foreign  grower  would  beat  down 
the  British  and  get  a  monopoly  of  the  British  mar- 
ket into  his  hands."  Let  the  reader  substitute 
"  American  "  for  "  British  "  in  the  above  extract, 
and  "  manufactures  "  for  "  agriculture,"  and  he  will 
at  once  recognize  a  prominent  figure  in  the  tarifi 
debate  of  1884.  The  discarded  English  rags  are 
patched  and  renovated,  and  soaped  and  brushed 
until  they  look  like  new,  and  our  statesmen 
wear  them  with  benighted  vanity  and  pride. 
Having  thrown  all  the  land  of  England  out  of  cul- 
tivation, and  thus  terrified  the  farnVers,  the  writer 
proceeds  to  scare  the  workingmen  in  towns  by  the 
specter  of  "low  wages."     He  says: 

"  Could  the  manufacturing  operatives  or  any 
class  of  laborers  keep  their  money  wages  up  to 
their  present  level  if  a  permanent  reduction  in  the 


142  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

price  of  the  necessaries  of  life  had  taken  place  ? 
Nothing  is  clearer  than  that  they  could  not.  The 
money  rate  of  wages  wholly  independent  of  the 
price  of  provisions  from  year  to  year  is  entirely 
regulated  by  it,  other  things  being  equal  from  ten 
years  to  ten  years.  If  by  the  free  importation  of 
foreign  grain  the  money  price  of  it  is  reduced  one- 
half,  the  ultimate  result  will  be  that  wages  will  fall 
one-half  also." 

It  was  not  known  in  England  at  that  time,  al- 
though some  people  suspected  it,  that  the  actual 
leverse  of  this  was  the  true  doctrine  of  wages,  and 
that  in  proportion  to  the  cheapness  of  necessaries 
was  the  independence  of  the  laboring  man,  and 
that  in  proportion  to  that  independence  was  his 
command  over  the  hours  of  labor  and  the  rate  of 
wages ;  that  in  a  condition  of  physical  comfort  he 
could  work  less  hours,  and  thus  diminish  competi- 
tion in  the  labor  market,  and  increase  the  rate  of 
wages.  In  England  a  man  might  as  well  dispute 
the  laws  of  Kepler  now  as  this  law,  that  in  pro- 
portion to  the  dearness  of  home  necessaries  to  the 
laborer,  so  is  the  hardness  of  his  labor,  and  the 
length  of  his  working  day. 

The  infallible  authority  among  Protectionists  is 
Adam  Smith,  whenever  they  find  a  paragraph 
written  by  him  which  seems  to  lean  towards  their 
side.  Pleased  as  a  miner  who  has  found  a  big 
nugget,  this  writer  in  Blackivood  said,  "Mr.  Smith 
has  long  ago  stated  that  the  most  profitable  trade 
in  every  State  is  that  which  is  carried  on  between 


WAGES.  143 

the  town  and  the  country,  and  that  the  home 
market  for  our  manufactures  is  worth  all  foreign 
markets  put  together."  This  doctrine  has  many 
qualifications.  Often  a  country  excels  in  manu- 
factures which  the  native  people  do  not  use,  or  use 
to  a  limited  extent,  and  then  the  rule  fails.  The 
people  in  a  cold  climate  may  excel  greatly  in  the 
manufacture  of  an  article  which  is  used  only  in  a 
hot  climate,  or  like  the  watchmakers  of  Switzer- 
land, they  may  excel  in  the  manufacture  of  a  lux- 
ury far  in  excess  of  the  needs  or  means  of  their  own 
people,  and  there  also  the  rule  fails.  Again,  the 
very  condition  of  the  doctrine  is  the  prosperity  of 
the  home  customer,  and  when  that  fails,  the  rule 
ceases.  Under  the  strain  of  this  test  the  doctrine 
broke  down  altogether  in  1843.  In  that  year  the 
price  of  grain  went  so  low  as  to  greatly  embarrass 
the  farming  community,  and  the  reason  was  that 
their  town  customers  had  become  too  poor  to  buy 
bread  enough  to  eat. 

Two  years  after  this,  in  June  1840,  Blackwood 
agaia  referred  to  the  Corn-Laws,  and  condemned 
the  effort  to  abolish  them.  With  a  supercilious  air 
of  patronage  to  the  workingmen,  it  affected  to  re- 
gard tlie  most  tremendous  question  that  had  ap- 
peared in  English  politics  since  the  revolution  of 
1688,  as  a  merely  sentimental  difference  between 
the  Whigs  and  Tories,  or  as  the  clamor  of  a  set  of 
demagogues  to  serve  their  personal  ambition.  It 
pretended  that  the  mighty  matter  of  a  people's 
food  was  a  trifling  affair  in  which  the  working- 


144  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

men  and  their  families  had  little  or  no  concern. 
It  said : 

"  With  regard  to  the  working  classes  we  humbly 
conceive  that  their  interest  in  this  matter  is  of  the 
slenderest  possible  description.  The  additional 
cheapness  of  food  which  is  promised  them,  would 
probably  never  be  realized,  and  at  any  rate  seems 
a  boon  of  the  most  insignificant  magnitude. 
If  accompanied  with  a  corresponding  or  more  than 
a  corresponding  decrease  of  wages  which  it  infalli- 
bly would  be,  its  advantage  would  entirely  be  de- 
stroyed. But  the  cry  of  cheap  bread  has  long  ceased 
to  operate  as  a  charm.  The  workingmen  are  too 
well  informed  to  believe  now  that  cheap  bread  is 
necessarily  a  boon  to  them  ....  Corn,  we  are 
told,  is  the  standard  of  wages.  If  so,  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  wages  should  not  fall  in  amount  in  at  least 
the  same  proportion  as  bread  ....  Cheap  bread 
and  cheap  sugar  mean,  we  believe,  nothing  less 
than  lower  wages,  less  prosperity,  and  increased 
competition  of  manual  labor." 

The  artful  manner  in  which  the  folly  and  ignor- 
ance of  the  workingmen  are  flatteringly  alluded 
to  as  wisdom  and  information,  is  worthy  of  all 
praise.  It  would  do  credit  to  a  first  class  dema- 
gogue here.  So  also  there  was  a  creditable  display 
of  low  cunning  in  the  smooth  encouragement  given 
by  the  writer  to  the  mischievous  error  about  the 
law  of  wages  which  he  well  knew  was  misleading 
the  workingmen  of  England  at  that  time.  They 
believed  that  wages  was  a  certain  allowance  given 


WAGES.  145 

by  employers  at  their  own  will,  and  that  they 
established  it  on  the  quantity  of  food,  clothing,  and 
other  comforts  absolutely  necessary  to  enable  the 
artisan  to  live  and  work ;  much  as  the  Southern 
planter  established  the  rations  for  his  slaves.  They 
believed  that  the  employers  were  constantly  watch- 
ing to  see  how  little  the  workingmen  could  sub- 
sist on,  and  that  whenever  they  found  they  could 
do  without  something  formerly  enjoyed,  wages 
would  be  lowered,  because  no  longer  necessary  to 
buy  that  comfort,  whatever  it  was.  To  this  mis- 
take was  largely  due  the  improvidence  of  the  work- 
ingmen. They  thought  that  economy  was  a  vice 
and  a  meanness  that  a  workingman  ought  not  to 
be  guilty  of,  because  it  threatened  the  wages  of  his 
brother  craftsmen.  The  theory  was  that  when  the 
masters  found  out  that  the  men  could  live  on  less, 
they  would  reduce  their  wages  to  the  new  standard 
of  subsistence.  The  temperance  movement  in  Eng- 
land was  resisted  by  the  workingmen  on  that  prin- 
ciple. The  brewers  and  publicans  employed  good 
talkers  among  the  workingmen  to  proclaim  that 
doctrine  on  the  stump.  They  declared  that  the 
temperance  movement  was  a  scheme  of  the  masters 
to  lower  wages,  that  for  centuries  the  absolute 
necessity  of  beer  to  strengthen  the  workingman 
had  been  considered  in  establisliing  the  rate  of 
wages,  and  that  if  it  should  be  demonstrated  that 
he  could  do  without  beer,  that  element  in  his 
wages  would  be  taken  away.  With  loud  scorn 
they  would  enquire,  "Wot's  a  man  without  his 


146  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

beer?"  and  the  answer  would  be  a  round  of  ap- 
plause.    In  pathetic  poetry  they  would  exclaim, 

"  Consarn  my  heyes, 

If  hever  I  tries, 

To  rob  a  poor  man  of  his  beer." 

And  for  years  a  teetotaler  was  regardea  as  a 
spiritless  fellow  willing  to  put  wages  in  jeopardy. 
Those  poor  ignorant  people  were  the  men  that 
Blackwood  was  wheedling  and  flattering  as  "too 
well  informed"  to  believe  that  cheap  bread  was  a 
desirable  thing.  A  touch  of  sadness  falls  upon  us 
at  the  bare  suspicion  that  the  deceitful  article  above 
quoted  was  perhaps  written  by  the  great  Kit  North 
himself. 

But  the  "  low  wages  "  delusion  was  not  confined 
to  the  workingmen ;  many  of  the  statesmen  of  the 
country  entertained  it,  as  the  debates  in  Parliament 
will  show.  Sir  Robert  Peel  himself,  in  his  mem- 
oirs, confesses  that  for  a  long  time  he  was  misled 
by  it.  Neither  was  it  proclaimed  by  the  Protec- 
tionists alone ;  many  of  the  Free  Trade  party  con- 
ceded the  principle  that  cheap  food  lowered  wages, 
but  not  so  much  they  said  as  to  counterbalance 
the  advantages  of  the  cheapness.  As  far  back  as 
1834,  The  Edinburgh  Review,  a  Free  Trade  advocate, 
in  an  article  on  the  poems  of  Ebenezer  Elliott,  just 
then  published,  which  poems  were  chiefly  devoted 
to  a  passionate  condemnation  of  the  Corn-Laws, 
said: 

"  Mr.  Ebenezer  Elliott  admits  that  as  a  class  the 
peasant  is  at  present  much  worse  off  than  the  me- 


WAGES.  147 

chanic.  The  peasant  would  be  worse  off  still  were 
a  repeal  of  the  Corn-Laws,  by  lessening  a  demand 
for  his  labor,  to  lower  his  wages  or  throw  him  out 
of  employment.  To  whatever  other  objections 
Corn- Laws  may  be  exposed,  our  temporary  facili- 
ties for  the  production  of  manufactures  have  been 
so  vast  that  it  may  be  doubted  whether  our  manu- 
facturing population  has  hitherto  lost  anything 
in  real  wages,  or  in  employment  from  the  addition 
made  by  the  Corn-Laws  to  the  price  of  bread," 

Afterwards  27>«  Edinburgh  Review  changed  its 
opinion,  and  admitted  that  wages  rose  as  the 
prices  of  the  necesaries  of  life  went  down,  and  in 
eloquent  criticism  which  is  as  valuable  in  America 
to-day  as  it  was  in  England  then,  it  denounced 
^'That  barbarous  commercial  code  which  every 
day  tends  more  and  more  to  diminish  our  v  en- 
joyments, to  misdirect  our  industry,  to  render  our 
trade  haz  irdous  as  well  as  unproductive,  and  to 
divide  society  into  hostile  sections  ....  In  time 
we  shall  feel  the  wickedness  of  exposing  millions 
to  privation  in  order  to  supply  affluence  to  thou- 
sands, and  in  time  the  small  class  that  governs  us 
will  discover  that  the  permanence  of  its  rule  de- 
pends on  its  escaping  the  charge  of  selfish  legisla- 
tion." 

There  was  but  one  way  to  reach  the  minds  of 
workingmen  saturated  with  the  prejudices  of  cen- 
turies, jealous  of  all  foreign  rivalry,  suspicious  of 
the  "masters,"  and  densely  ignorant  of  the  laws  of 
work  and  wages,  of  markets  and  of  prices.     That 


148  HISTORY   OF  FREE   TRADE. 

way  was  taken  by  the  League.  It  was  hard  work 
to  teach  them  the  abstract  prmciples  of  pohtical 
economy,  or  to  show  them  the  ultimate  advantages 
of  Free  Trade.  The  surest  way  to  reach  them  was 
by  the  concrete  argument  of  a  big  loaf  of  bread  for 
a  small  sum  of  money.  A  big  loaf  was  an  object 
lesson  they  could  easily  understand,  and  when 
thoroughly  learned  it  made  even  abstract  lessons 
easy.  It  was  shown  to  them  that  the  laws  for  the 
"protection  of  native  industry"  actually  excluded 
from  England  shiploads  of  cheap  flour,  and  meal, 
and  meat  that  wanted  to  come  in ;  that  thereby 
scarcity  was  created  by  force  of  law,  and  the  ob- 
vious and  intended  effect  of  the  scarcity  was  to 
increaie  the  price  of  bread.  In  the  Free  Trade 
processions  big  loaves  of  bread  called  Free  Trade 
loaves,  and  small  ones  called  Protection  leaves 
were  carried  on  poles,  and  exhibited  at  the  meet- 
ings. It  was  thought  even  by  the  Free  Traders 
that  the  discrepancy  in  the  size  of  the  loaves  was 
a  little  exaggerated,  but  this  was  considered  par- 
donable at  the  time.  The  result  of  the  Free  Trade 
policy  has  proved,  however,  that  considering  the 
improved  power  of  buying  bread  now  possessed 
by  the  workingmen,  the  discrepancy  was  not  exag- 
gerated at  all.  The  big  loaf  argument  at  last  took 
fast  hold  of  the  workingmen  in  the  towns,  and  al- 
though they  still  clung  to  their  sentimental  poli- 
tics, and  demanded  radical  measures  of  parliamen- 
tary reform,  a  majority  of  them  became  disciples 
and  adherents  of  the  League.     There  was  clap-trap 


WAGES.  149 

in  this  mode  of  argument,  no  doubt  of  it,  but  it 
was  mathematical  clap-trap,  for  the  Free  Traders 
proved  by  the  figures  how  much  the  tariff  increased 
the  price  of  a  barrel  of  flour ;  then  it  was  easy  to 
show  what  the  size  of  a  sixpenny  loaf  would  be  if 
the  tax  were  taken  from  the  flour  of  which  it  was 
made.  The  counter  argument  of  "  low  wages " 
was  weakened  when  Cobden  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  in  the  experience  of  the  men  he  was 
talking  to,  wages  did  not  rise  with  the  rise  in  the 
price  of  bread.  The  Protectionists  tried  to  explain 
this  by  saying  that  the  law  did  not  adjust  itself  to 
sudden  changes  like  those  from  year  to  year,  but 
that  "  from  ten  years  to  ten  years  "  it  did.  This 
was  not  convincing,  and  the  argument  lost  ground. 
The  Free  Traders  acted  wisely  in  the  very  be- 
ginning of  the  struggle  by  refusing  to  complicate 
their  plans  by  any  alliance  with  either  of  the 
"  two  great  parties  "  inside  Parliament,  or  with 
the  third  great  party,  the  unrepresented  Chartists 
outside.  They  kept  in  view. the  one  great  object, 
the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws,  and  directed  all  their 
energies  to  that.  Between  1839  and  184:4,  the 
League  had  distributed  nine  million  tracts  among 
the  people,  and  had  furnished  a  Free  Trade  library 
to  every  voter  in  the  kingdom.  This  was  Cob- 
den's  way  of  "  bringing  the  truth  home  to  a  man." 
It  cost  a  great  deal  of  money,  but  the  League  had 
plenty.  Cobden,  Bright,  and  many  orators  of  lesser 
note  were  continually  engaged  in  addressing  pub- 
lic meetings,  and  every  part  of  England  was  can- 


150  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

Tassed;  not  the  manufacturing  towns  alone,  but 
«,lso  the  rural  districts.  In  1842,  Mr.  Cobden  and 
Mr.  Bright  held  meetings  in  many  parts  of  Scot- 
land, and  they  had  little  trouble  in  convincing  the 
people  of  that  country  that  the  Protective  System 
was  injurious  to  every  business  and  to  every  in- 
dustry there.  Mr.  Bright  confessed  that  the  peo- 
ple of  Scotland  understood  the  Free  Trade 
question  much  better  than  the  people  of  England, 
and  with  the  exception  of  the  landlords  and  some 
of  the  great  monopolists,  they  were  nearly  all 
Free  Traders. 

The  business  depression  and  the  poverty  of  the 
people  were,  of  course,  potent  arguments  in  the 
speeches  of  the  leaders  of  the  League.  During 
the  winter  of  1842-3  the  League  and  its  literature 
-were  everywhere,  and  men  who  could  not  read 
were  compelled  to  listen.  Great  meetings  were 
held,  and  all  the  people  in  the  towns  were  ex- 
cited to  a  discussion  of  the  great  question.  The 
Annual  reigister  for  1843,  referring  to  the  agita- 
tion, said :  "  Amidst  the  general  stagnation  and 
distress  that  prevailed,  the  Anti-Corn-Law  League 
forced  themselves  upon  the  public  ear,  and  they 
failed  not  to  avail  themselves  freely  of  the  themes 
of  depression  and  distress  as  irresistible  argu- 
ments against  the  continuance  of  that  system  of 
Protection  which  they  defied  the  government  with 
all  its  parliamentary  majority  to  maintain."  The 
excitement  of  the  previous  year,  instead  of  being 
<iuieted  by  the  amended  tariff  of  1842,  and  the 


WAGES. 


151 


modification  of  the  sliding  scale,  had  been  in- 
creased, if  possible,  by  those  measures.  The 
League  took  advantage  of  every  vacancy  that  oc- 
curred in  the  House  of  Commons  to  arouse  the 
public  interest  by  putting  up  Free  Trade  candidates, 
and  although  they  were  generally  beaten  at  the 
polls,  they  made  it  uncomfortably  plain  that  pop- 
ular opinion  was  in  their  favor  although  the  vot- 
ing majorities  were  generally  against  them.  In 
the  spring  of  1843,  a  vacancy  having  occurred  for 
Durham,  Mr.  Bright  offered  himself  as  a  candi- 
date, and  although  the  show  of  hands  was  largely 
in  his  favor,  he  was  defeated  by  Lord  Dungannon, 
the  Protectionist  candidate,  by  a  majority  of  102 
in  a  poll  of  912  votes.  In  July,  Lord  Dungannon 
having  been  unseated  for  bribery,  Mr.  Bright  of- 
fered himself  as  a  candidate  again,  and  this  time 
he  was  elected  over  Mr.  Purvis,  the  Protectionist 
candidate,  by  488  against  410.  This,  although 
a  small  matter  in  itself,  was  ominous  of  future 
disaster  to  the  Protectionist  cause.  The  landlords 
became  alarmed  and  began  to  distrust  the  Tory 
government  itself,  for  some  of  the  ministers  had 
made  use  of  arguments  and  dropped  expressions 
in  debate  and  elsewhere,  which  although  purely 
abstract,  and  having  no  relation  to  any  practical 
and  immediate  measures,  were,  after  all,  unortho- 
dox. The  consequence  was  that  they  took  up  a 
weak  defensive  position,  and  gave  the  Free  Traders 
all  the  advantage  of  a  very  enthusiastic  attack. 
By  the  autumn  of  1843  the  Free  Trade  agita- 


152  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

lion  had  reached  immense  proportions,  and  the 
Protectionists    had    almost    ceased    to     contend 
against  it  in  argument.    Timid  people  now  pre- 
tended to  feel  alarmed  at  its  dimensions.    They 
believed  in  the  principle,  but  thought  the  League 
was    carrying    things    too    far.       It    was    shak- 
ing society  too  much.    The  League  and  its  leaders 
were  coarsely  assailed  by  The  Times  and  Reviews, 
and  some  of  the  Tory  papers  called  upon  the  gov- 
ernment to  suppress  it  as  a  seditious  and  treason- 
able conspiracy.    Lord  Brougham,  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  and  Mr.  Roebuck,  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, both  Free  Traders,  assailed  the  League  with 
vehement  anger.  Its  answer  to  all  this  denunciation 
was  redoubled  activity.  Meetings  were  held  in  the 
agricultural  districts  right  among  the  farmers,  and 
Free  Trade  resolutions  carried.    At  Bedford,  Mr. 
Cobden  maintained  a  six  hours  debate  with  the 
farmers  of  that  county,  and  at  the  end  of  it  a  Free 
Trade  resolution  was  carried  by  more  than  two  to 
one.    This  was  the  most  disheartening  fact  of  all. 
The  Tory  papers  bitterly  denounced  their  own 
men,  because  they  had  not  the  courage  to  meet  Cob- 
den and  Bright  in  argument,  and  when  they  did 
meet  them,  confessed  themselves  defeated  by  Free 
Trade  fallacies  that  could  easily  be  answered. 

London  was  roused  at  last.  The  great  halls 
were  found  quite  insufficient  for  the  Free  Trade 
meetings.  They  would  not  hold  a  quarter  of  the 
multitudes  that  flocked  to  hear  the  Free  Trade 
orators,  so  Drury  Lane  Theatre  was  engaged  for 


WAOES.  15S 

the  purpose.  Petitions  to  Parliament  asking  for 
Free  Trade  were  displayed  at  the  street  corners, 
and  signed  by  thousands  of  people.  To  empha- 
size the  struggle  a  vacancy  in  Parliament  for  the 
city  of  London  occurred  in  the  fall  of  1843.  After 
a  severe  contest,  Mr.  Pattison,  the  Free  Trade 
candidate,  was  elected  over  the  Tory  candidate, 
Mr.  Baring,  a  nephew  of  Lord  Ashburton,  and  a 
man  of  great  wealth  and  personal  popularity. 
This  was  an  omen  of  further  disaster  to  the  Pro- 
tectionists, and  although  the  physical  force  of 
their  majority  in  the  House  of  Commons  still  re- 
mained intact,  its  moral  vigor  was  visibly  crumb- 
ling under  the  pressure  of  the  League. 

Early  in  the  contest  the  opponents  of  the  Corn- 
Laws  discovered  that  a  mere  struggle  to  obtain 
for  the  manufacturing  "  interest "  an  advantage 
over  the  agricultural  "  interest  "  in  the  protective 
legislation  of  the  country  would  have  no  moral 
strength  whatever.  They  saw  that  in  a  competi- 
tion to  re-adjust  the  tariff  on  a  basis  more  favor- 
able for  themselves,  and  less  favorable  for  their 
rivals,  their  own  arguments  would  be  turned 
against  them.  The  manufacturers  soon  perceived 
that  their  demand  upon  the  agriculturists  to  sur- 
render the  privilege  of  extorting  taxes  from  the 
people  must  be  accompanied  by  an  offer  on  their 
own  part  to  surrender  the  power  to  do  the  same 
thing.  Although  some  consented  to  this  plan 
with  reluctance,  and  maintained  that  the  manu- 
facturing interest  should  be  "  protected  "  in  order 


154  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

to  diversify  industry,  and  create  a  home  market 
for  the  farmers,  it  was  agreed  that  the  only  just 
and  scientific  reform  was  to  equalize  the  privileges 
of  all  classes  by  a  horizontal  sweep-away  of  the 
whole  Protective  System,  and  that  all  duties  on 
imports  must  be  assessed  and  collected  on  the 
basis  of  "  a  tariff  for  revenue  only." 

In  accordance  with  that  principle  the  deputies 
of  the  manufacturers  of  Manchester,  Leeds,  Liv- 
erpool, Sheffield,  Derby,  Wolverhampton,  Bir- 
mingham, and  Glasgow,  at  their  meeting  held  on 
the  5th  of  July,  1839,  declared,  "  that  this  meeting, 
while  it  demands  as  an  act  of  justice  the  total 
and  immediate  repeal  of  all  laws  imposing  duties 
upon,  and  restricting  the  importation  of  corn  and 
other  articles  of  subsistence,  is  prepared  to  resign 
all  claims  to  protection  on  home  manufactures, 
and  to  carry  out  to  their  fullest  extent,  both  as 
afiects  agriculture  and  manufactures,  the  true  and 
peaceful  principles  of  Free  Trade,  by  removing 
all  existing  obstacles  to  the  unrestricted  inter- 
change of  industry  and  capital  among  nations." 


CHAPTER  X. 
RECIPROCITY. 

ImproTed  Condition  of  the  Country  at  the  Opening  of 
1844 — The  Ministry  Strengthened  by  it — Saccess  of  the 
Tariff  of  1842 — Increased  Revenue — Opening  of  Parlia- 
ment —The  Queen  Congratulates  Parliament  on  the  Im- 
proved Condition  of  the  Country — Lords  in  the  House 
of  Commons — The  Sugar  Duties — Debate  Thereon — The 
Tariff  as  an  Abolitionist — Mr.  Cobden's  Motion  for  a 
Committee  on  Tenant  Farmers  and  Farmer  Laborers — 
Debate  Upon  it — Mr.  Gladstone's  Reply  to  Cobden — Mr. 
Ricardo  on  Reciprocity. 

The  year  1844  opened  brightly  for  Sir  Robert 
Peel  and  his  government.  There  had  been  a 
fair  harvest,  food  was  more  abundant,  trade  and 
manufactures  were  reviving,  the  revenue  receipts 
exceeded  the  estimates,  and  there  was  a  hopeful 
feeling  throughout  the  country.  The  improved 
appearance  of  public  affairs,  it  was  thought  by 
many,  had  weakened  the  League.  This  may  be 
doubted,  but  it  had  certainly  strengthened  the 
ministry,  and  enabled  Sir  Robert  Peel  to  speak  in 
an  emphatic  and  decided  tone  when  he  pro- 
claimed the  intention  of  the  government  to  main- 
tain the  settlement  of  1842,  and  that  no  further 
alterations  in  the  Corn-Laws  would  be  made. 
The  strength  of  the  government  may  have  held 
men  back  from  joining  the  League,  or  actively  as- 

165 


156  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

sisting  it,  because  of  the  belief  that  the  work  was 
hopeless ;  and  although  the  Free  Trade  agitation 
in  Parliament  may  have  been  less  vigorous  than 
last  year,  its  strength  outside  did  not  appear  to 
have  abated.  On  the  21st  of  February  an  im- 
mense Free  Trade  meeting  was  held  at  Covent 
Garden  Theatre,  at  which  Mr.  O'Connell  made  the 
principal  speech  of  the  evening.  The  theatre 
was  packed  in  every  part,  and  many  thousands  of 
people  were  crowded  together  outside  unable  to 
gain  admission.  Other  meetings  in  different  parts  of 
the  country  were  equally  crowded  and  enthusiastic. 
Still,  for  all  that,  the  ministers  were  not  afraid  to 
meet  Parliament.  They  knew  that  their  majority 
in  the  House  of  Commons  was  still  solid  and  in- 
vincible ;  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  could 
show  a  good  budget,  and  they  believed  that  the 
conservative  sentiment  outside  was  quite  strong 
enough  to  take  care  of  the  League.  On  the  1st 
day  of  February,  1844,  the  Queen  opened  Parlia- 
ment in  person,  and  the  speech  from  the  throne 
contained  this  paragraph  :  "  I  congratulate  you 
on  the  improved  condition  of  several  branches  of 
the  trade  and  manufactures  of  the  country.  I 
trust  that  the  increased  demand  for  labor  has  re- 
lieved, in  a  corresponding  degree,  many  classes  of 
my  faithful  subjects  from  sufferings  and  priva- 
tions, which,  at  former  periods,  I  have  had  occa- 
sion to  deplore." 

As  Sir  Robert  Peel  walked  down  to  the  House 
of  Commons  to  meet  Parliament  at  the  opening 


RECIPROCITY.  157 

of  the  session  of  1844,  it  was  noticed  that  his  eye 
was  clear  and  bright,  his  step  elastic,  his  bearing 
proud.  The  haggard  look  which  he  wore  at  the 
previous  session  was  gone.  His  manner  plainly 
told  that  he  was  not  afraid  of  the  Free  Traders 
now.  He  was  fortified  with  a  weapon  of  offense 
against  them,  which,  curiously  enough,  they 
themselves  had  furnished  him.  The  country  was 
comparatively  prosperous,  as  he  had  proudly 
proclaimed  in  the  speech  from  the  throne.  Less 
than  two  years  had  gone  since  he  had  yielded  a 
slight  experimental  modification  of  the  tariff,  and 
the  success  of  the  experiment  had  been  greater 
than  even  the  Free  Traders  had  dared  to  proph- 
esy. The  reduction  of  import  duties  had  been 
followed  by  an  increased  revenue  from  imports. 
The  modification  of  the  Corn-Laws,  slight  as  it 
was,  and  a  good  harvest,  had  made  bread  cheaper, 
and  to  the  utter  confounding  of  the  Protectionists, 
cheaper  bread  had  been  accompanied  by  higher 
wages.  A  small  abatement  of  the  Protective  Sys- 
tem had  been  followed  by  increased  manufactur- 
ing activity,  capital  had  come  forth  from  its  hid- 
ing places,  and  was  invested  in  farming,  in  trade, 
and  in  manufactures  ;  labor  was  in  demand,  and 
the  Prime  Minister  might  very  justly  say,  "If 
Cobden  declared  last  year  that  I  was  individually 
responsible  for  the  distress  of  the  country,  he 
must,  this  year,  give  me  individually  the  credit 
for  its  improved  condition." 

Tlie  term  ])rosperity  here  must  be  understood 


158  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

in  a  comparative  sense  only.  There  was  a  great 
amount  of  poverty  yet  in  the  country,  and  hun- 
ger and  misery  everywhere,  but  as  compared  with 
the  previous  year  the  improvement  was  very  great. 
Strangely  enough,  the  success  of  the  slight  advance 
towards  Free  Trade  made  by  Peel  in  the  tariff  of 
1842,  instead  of  being  an  encouragement  to  pro- 
ceed further  in  the  same  direction,  was  given  as  a 
reason  why  he  should  stop.  Help  us  to  let  well 
enough  alone,  was  now  the  appeal  of  the  minister 
to  the  House  of  Commons  and  the  country.  All 
the  assaults  of  Cobden  were  parried  by  Peel  with 
the  Free  Trade  weapon  he  had  borrowed  from  the- 
League  in  1842.  By  means  of  this,  he  said,  I 
have  improved  the  condition  of  the  country ;  let 
us  be  content. 

The  country  recognized  that  the  "  better  times  " 
were  due  to  the  labors  of  the  League,  but  was 
not  generous  enough  to  say  so.  The  action  of  the 
high-toned  liberal  papers  was  shuffling,  com- 
promising, and  insincere.  One  of  them,  of  great 
respectability  and  immense  circulation,  speaking 
joyfully  of  the  Queen's  speech  and  its  congratula- 
tions to  the  country,  said,  "  We  express  no  opinion 
upon  the  effect  of  the  speech  upon  the  present 
Corn-Law  agitation — the  League  does  not  want 
more  vigorous  opponents  or  more  vigorous  sup- 
port than  are  engaged  for  or  against  it  at  the  pres- 
ent crisis."  As  if  every  cause  does  not  want  all 
the  support  it  can  get.  Its  excuse  for  not  sup- 
porting the    League   was   that  the    League   was 


RECIPROCITY.  159 

tronj;  enone^h  already.  The  truth,  however,  was 
that  the  liberal  press  was  still  Protectionist  in 
feeling,  and  afraid  of  ch.-nge.  The  very  paper 
from  which  the  above  extract  is  taken,  in  its 
first  article  for  New  Year's,  1844,  in  a  rather  pas- 
sionate appeal  to  the  government  concerning  pub- 
lic affairs,  and  calling  for  all  sorts  of  legislation  in 
other  directions,  spoke  thus  timidly  on  the  main 
question  of  the  day,  "  Preserve  the  balance  of 
power  by  sacrificing  neither  the  commercialist 
nor  the  agriculturist  to  the  cry  of  party  ;  "  which 
was  easily  translated  to  mean  this,  "  As  to  the 
tariff  and  the  Corn-Laws,  do  nothing." 

Without  stopping  to  discuss  any  further  who  was 
entitled  to  the  credit  of  it,  one  thing  is  certain,  the 
improved  condition  of  the  country  gave  the  min- 
isters a  firmer  grip  on  the  government,  and  when 
Mr.  Hume  and  Lord  John  Russell,  on  the  first 
day  of  the  session,  both  complained  that  no  ref- 
erence to  the  Corn- Laws  was  made  in  the  Queen's 
speech.  Sir  Robert  Peel,  feeling  the  full  strength 
of  his  position,  gave  positive  notice  that  no  alter- 
ation would  be  made  in  the  Corn-Laws.  Old 
Hume,  however,  nothing  daunted,  moved  as  an 
amendment  to  the  address  in  answer  to  the  royal 
speech,  "  that  the  provision  laws  should  be  con- 
sidered and  dealt  with."  He  was  overwhelmed 
by  a  majority  of  no  less  than  185  votes,  the 
exact  figures  being:  For  the  amendment  49, 
against  it  235.  Here  again  the  Whigs  and  Tories 
voted  "  solid  "  for  Protection. 


HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

As  this  book  is  written  chiefly  for  Americafi. 
readers,  and  as  many  of  them  are  not  acquainted 
with  the  somewhat  intricate  constitution  of  the 
English  ParHament,  a  few  words  may  not  be  out 
of  place  to  explain  why  so  many  Lords  have 
seats  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Briefly  then 
all  peers  of  the  realm  are  lords,  but  all  lords  are 
not  peers  of  the  realm.  All  the  sons  of  Dukes 
and  Marquises  are  "  Lords  "  by  courtesy,  and  the 
eldest  sons  of  Dukes,  Marquises,  and  Earls  are  al- 
lowed by  courtesy  to  bear  the  second  titles  of 
their  fathers.  Thus,  the  Marquis  of  Lome  bears 
the  second  title  of  his  father,  the  Duke  of  Argyle, 
but  he  is  only  a  commoner  for  all  that,  and  in  his 
commission  as  Governor-General  of  Canada,  he  is 
described  as  John  Campbell,  Esquire,  commonly 
called  the  Marquis  of  Lome.  Lord  Randolph 
Churchill  is  only  an  esquire,  although  being  the 
younger  son  of  a  Duke  he  bears  the  title  of  Lord 
by  courtesy.  Therefore  the  Lords  so  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  proceedings  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  are  generally  the  younger  sons  of 
Dukes  and  Marquises  or  the  eldest  sons  of  Earls. 
Irish  peers  also,  not  being  peers  of  England,  are 
eligible  to  seats  in  the  House  of  Commons.  Thus 
Lord  Palmerston  sat  in  that  House  until  the  day  of 
h's  death,  for  he  never  was  a  peer  of  England,  but 
of  Ireland  only.  Some  readers  may  be  puzzled  to 
understand  how  it  happens  that  in  the  beginning 
of  this  history  Lord  Stanley  takes  part  in  the  de- 
bates in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  towards  the 
latter  part  of  it  he  appears  in  the  House  of  Lords. 


RECIPROCITY.  161 

The  explanation  is  this:  Lord  Stanley  was  the 
eldest  son  of  an  Earl,  and  sat  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  bearing  by  courtesy  the  second  title  of 
his  father.  During  Peel's  administration  it  was 
felt  that  the  Tories  needed  a  little  more  debating 
power  in  the  House  of  Lords,  and  Lord  Stanley 
was  created  a  peer  in  his  own  right.  It  will  thus  be 
understood  that  where  "  Lords  "  are  mentioned  in 
the  proceedings  of  the  House  of  Commons,  they 
are  Lords  by  courtesy  only,  or  peers  of  Ireland. 

The  first  assault  upon  the  tariff  in  the  session 
of  1844  was  an  innocent  question  put  by  Mr. 
Pattison,  the  recently  elected  member  for  the  city 
of  London,  to  Sir  Robert  Peel.  Mr.  Pattison 
inquired  whether  or  not  the  sugar  duties  would 
be  altered  this  session.  Sir  Robert  replied,  "  That 
is  a  question  which  I  should  have  expected  would 
have  been  asked  by  the  youngest  member  of  this 
house — for  certainly  nothing  but  the  circumstance 
of  a  member  being  the  youngest  among  us  could 
justify  such  a  question."  As  Mr.  Pattison  was  a 
very  great  personage,  indeed,  an  elderly  gentleman, 
member  for  the  city  of  London,  Governor  of  the 
Bank  of  England,  and  a  member  of  Parliament 
years  ago,  the  House  enjoyed  Peel's  banter  very 
much,  for  Mr.  Pattison  having  just  been  elected 
to  fill  a  vacancy  was  in  fact  the  youngest  member 
of  the  House.  As  Peel  was  a  very  serious  man,  who 
seldom  "  chaffed  "  anybody,  the  incident  served  to 
show  that  he  was  in  high  spirits  because  of  the  bet- 
ter appearance  of  public  affairs,  and  the  success  of 


162  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

the  measures  he  had  adopted  and  passed  in  1842. 
But  the  sugar  question  was  up  again  in  a  few  days 
in  such  a  shape  that  it  could  not  be  jested  out  of 
court,  but  must  be  seriously  discussed  on  its 
merits.  It  may  be  a  matter  of  surprise  that  as 
there  was  no  sugar  grown  in  England,  the  English 
Parliament  should  so  persistently  exclude  foreign 
sugar  from  England  by  a  high  protective  tariff, 
but  the  explanation  is  that  the  great  sugar  plan- 
tations in  Jamaica  and  the  other  British  West 
Indies,  were  mostly  owned  by  Englishmen,  and 
the  high  tariff  was  defended  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  our  duty  "  to  protect  the  industry  of  our  own 
colonies."  To  accomplish  this  patriotic  object, 
and  to  ensure  dear  sugar  to  the  English  people, 
all  foreign  sugar  was  excluded  from  British  ports 
by  a  protective  tariff  amounting  to  300  per  cent. 
ad  valorem. 

On  the  6th  of  March  Mr.  Labouchere  brought 
up  the  sugar  question  in  a  discussion  of  the  com- 
mercial relations  existing  between  Great  Britain 
and  Brazil.  Mr.  Labouchere  had  been  a  member 
of  the  Whig  ministry,  he  wa«  well  provided  with 
facts,  and  he  made  an  argument  that  greatly  em- 
barrassed the  government.  The  debate  is  worth 
study,  because  of  the  striking  parallel  it  shows 
between  the  commerce  of  England  and  Brazil  in 
1844,  and  that  of  the  United  States  and  Brazil  in 
1884.  Mr.  Labouchere  showed  the  folly  of  the 
doctrine  that  exports  made  nations  rich  and  im- 
ports made  them  poor.  The  highest  duty  levied 
on  English  goods  by  the  customs  laws  of  Brazil 


RECIPROCITY.  163 

was  fifteen  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  while  the  useful 
products  of  Brazil  were  excluded  from  English 
ports  by  a  protective  tariff  amounting  to  pro- 
hibition. The  result  of  this  nonsense  was  that  an 
English  vessel  having  carried  a  cargo  of  English 
goods  to  Brazil,  and  exchanged  them  there  for 
sugar,  could  not  bring  that  sugar  to  England,  but 
must  take  it  to  some  third  country  and  sell  it 
there,  returning  home  in  ballast.  The  wisdom  of 
sending  ships  out  laden,  and  bringing  them  back 
empty,  was  as  vehemently  defended  in  the  British 
Parliament  in  1844  as  it  was  in  the  American 
Parliament  in  1884.  Now  all  the  ports  of  Britain 
offer  welcome  to  the  wealth  of  Brazil.  Her  trade 
with  Brazil  is  very  great,  while  ours  has  become 
so  contemptible  that  when  President  Garfield's 
ambassador  started  for  that  country  he  was  com- 
pelled to  go  to  England  in  order  to  engage  a 
passage  to  Rio  Janeiro. 

Mr.  Gladstone,  finding  himself  quite  unable  to 
answer  Mr.  Labouchere  with  any  statesmanlike  or 
economic  reasons,  fell  back  to  philanthropic  and 
humanitarian  ground.  He  declared  that  the  effect 
of  lowering  the  duty  on  Brazilian  sugar  would  be 
to  encourage  the  continuation  of  slavery  in  Brazil, 
and  whatever  the  commercial  advantage  might  be, 
they  must  not  overlook  the  considerations  of 
humanity.  This  was  cant,  so  transparent  that  it 
imposed  not  on  anybody,  and  Mr.  Gladstone's 
,  embarrassed  manner  showed  that  it  had  not  im- 
posed on  Inm.  He  easily  defeated  Mr.  Labouchere 
by  a  majority  of  seventy-three. 


164  HISTORY   OF   FREE  TRADE^ 

Early  in  the  session  Mr.  Cobden  gave  notice  of 
a  motion  for  a  special  committee  to  enquire  into 
the  effects  of  import  duties  in  their  bearing  upon 
tenant  farmers  and  farm  laborers.  This  was  car- 
rying the  war  into  Africa;  it  was  part  of  the 
aggressive  policy  of  the  League.  The  majority  in 
Parliament  had  been  contending  that  those  duties 
were  imposed  for  the  "  protection  "  of  those  very 
classes  whose  condition  Mr.  Cobden  proposed  to 
enquire  into.  They  dared  not  grant  the  motion, 
for  they  well  knew  that  Cobden  would  bring  a 
hatful  of  facts  to  demonstrate  that  every  year  the 
tenant  farmer  was  sinking  deeper  into  debt,  and 
that  the  farm  laborer  was  shivering  on  the  very 
verge  of  starvation.  "I  only  seek  for  inquiry," 
said  Mr.  Cobden, "  and  I  want  both  sides  to  be 
heard."  "  Nothing  would  suit  me  better  than  for 
Lord  Spencer  and  Lord  Ducie  to  be  examined 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  Duke  of  Richmond  and 
the  Duke  of  Buckingham  on  the  other."  He  then 
went  on  to  show  that  every  prediction  about  corn 
had  formerly  been  uttered  about  wool,  "  but,"  he 
enquired,  "  is  there  any  lack  of  mutton  ?  Are  all 
the  sheep-dogs  dead,  and  all  the  shepherds  in  the 
poor-house  ?  So  far  from  it  that  when  wool  was 
at  the  highest  price  the  largest  quantity  had  been 
imported ;  when  at  the  lowest  price,  the  smallest 
quantity."  This  apparent  paradox  he  explained 
by  showing  that  ability  to  buy  is  an  important 
agent  in  fixing  prices.  He  condensed  his  expla- 
nation into  the  following  sentence,  "  A  high  pi  ice 


RECIPROCITY.  165 

from  prosperity  may  be  permanent,  a  high  price 
from  scarcity  must  always  be  precarious."  This  was 
new  learning  to  the  House  of  Commons,  and  many 
of  the  members  were  startled  by  the  doctrine. 
Peel  himself  became  very  thoughtful  under  the 
lesson,  and  acknowledged  afterwards  that  the 
argument  was  new  to  him,  and  that  it  made  a 
great  impression  upon  him.  Gladstone,  too, 
looked  very  serious,  for  he  was  to  answer  Cobden. 
Then  the  orator  turned  upon  the  landlords  with 
one  of  those  fact-and-figure  accusations  that 
always  made  them  tremble.  He  went  right  into 
the  sanctuary  of  their  order  and  smote  the  idol 
rent.  "  I  can  prove,"  he  said,  "  that  out  of  fifty- 
two  shillings  a  quarter  paid  for  wheat  in  the 
Lothians,  twenty-six  shillings  goes  to  the  landlord ; 
and  so  it  is  likewise  throughout  England,  half  of 
what  is  eaten  goes  to  the  landlord."  He  concluded 
by  pouring  scornful  satire  upon  the  "  home 
market  "  superstition.  "  You  starve  the  agricul- 
turists," he  said,  "  and  then  offer  them  to  us  as  a 
valuable  class  of  home  customers." 

This  speech  marks  one  of  the  milestones  on  the 
Free  Trade  road.  It  had  a  great  effect,  and  many 
Protectionists  were  unsettled  by  it.  The  Times, 
then  strong  Tory  and  Protectionist,  and  a  scorn- 
ful critic  and  hater  of  Cobden,  confessed  its  power, 
and  said  that  Mr.  Cobden  had  stated  his  case 
"  with  great  temper  and  moderation."  It  then 
lectured  its  own  party  with  some  asperity,  and 
regretted   that  the    Conservatives   by   their  own 


166  HISTORY   OF  FREE   TRADE. 

neglect  should  have  allowed  the  question  of  the 
condition  of  the  agricultural  class  to  fall  into  Mr. 
Cobden's  hands  at  all.  Mr.  Gladstone,  in  reply, 
declared  that  it  was  a  "  very  able  speech,"  and  he 
complimented  Mr.  Cobden  on  the  deep  impression 
it  had  evidently  made  upon  the  House.  At  the 
same  time  he  questioned  the  correctness  of  Mr. 
Cobden's  calculations,  and  also  the  inferences  he 
drew  from  them.  He  opposed  the  motion  on  the 
ground  that  a  select  committee  could  do  no  prac- 
tical good,  while  the  mere  appointing  of  it  might 
have  a  paralyzing  efifect  upon  trade  and  revenue. 
It  would  alarm  the  agriculturists  who  would 
regard  the  success  of  the  motion  as  indicating 
another  attack  upon  their  interests,  and  a  change 
in  the  existing  law.  Mr.  Gladstone  spoke  in  the 
embarrassed  manner  of  an  advocate,  who  has  a 
strong  suspicion  that  the  other  side  is  right,  and 
that  he  himself  is  wrong.  He  "  questioned  "  and 
"  doubted,"  but  was  afraid  to  go  to  the  jury  lest 
his  doubts  might  be  removed.  "  I  wili  prove  what 
I  say,"  declared  Cobden,  "  if  you  will  grant  the 
committee."  "  I  don't  think  you  can,"  said  Glad- 
stone, "  and  I  will  not  grant  the  committee." 

The  precursor  of  our  inverted  American  states- 
men who  advocate  a  tariff  for  Protection  with 
incidental  revenue  appeared  in  the  person  of  a 
very  stupid  nobleman,  Lord  Pollington,  who  was 
of  opinion  that  a  tariff  should  not  be  imposed  for 
the  purpose  of  raising  revenue,  but  to  insure  our 
"independence  of  foreigners,"  and  to  give  pro- 


RECIPROCITY.  167 

tection  to  our  own  producers.  Mr.  F.  Scott  main- 
tained the  principle  of  getting  rich  by  taxing  one 
another  for  the  benefit  of  one  another.  He 
opposed  the  motion,  and  warned  the  manufac- 
turers that  they  would  sink  themselves  in  sinking 
the  agriculturists.  In  other  words,  if  the  manu- 
acturers  should  cease  to  pay  taxes  to  the  agricul- 
turists, the  latter  would  have  no  money  with 
which  to  buy  manufactured  goods.  Col.  Wood 
thought  he  had  made  a  good  point  against  the 
Free  Traders  by  mentioning  the  case  of  a  boot- 
maker who  was  for  a  Free  Trade  in  corn,  but 
objected  to  a  Free  Trade  in  boots.  The  argument, 
however,  counted  against  his  own  party,  for  it 
showed  that  the  bootmaker  was  a  Protectionist, 
and  that  a  selfish  desire  to  promote  our  own 
interests  at  the  expense  of  other  people  is  the 
essential  principle  of  the  whole  Protective  System. 
The  bootmaker  was  willing  that  the  law  should 
make  artificial  high  prices  for  those  articles  he 
had  to  sell,  but  he  was  not  willing  that  it  should 
make  high  prices  for  whatever  he  had  to  buy.  He 
was  a  genuine  Protectionist.  Many  other  mem- 
bers participated  in  the  debate,  and  the  Tories 
criticised  the  League  with  great  severity.  Mr. 
Newdigute  charged  the  League  with  exciting  the 
recent  disturbances  in  the  north,  and  its  metliods 
of  agitation  were  bitterly  condemned.  The 
].eague,  however,  refused  to  stand  on  the  defensive, 
:iiul  Mr.  Bright,  replying  to  the  accusation  that 
the  League  was  exciting  the  people,  admitted  the 


168  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

fact,  and  promised  that  they  would  continue  to  do 
BO.  No  evil,  he  said,  had  ever  found  redress  until 
agitation  had  compelled  it.  Mr.  Gladstone  com- 
manded the  Protectionist  forces,  and  he  defeated 
Cobden  by  the  triumphant  majority  of  ninety- 
one —  the  Tory  lucky  number  ;  for  it  was  the 
exact  majority  that  brought  Peel  into  power 
in  1841. 

On  the  19th  of  March  the  Free  Trade  question 
came  up  again  in  another  shape.  An  attack  was 
made  by  Mr.  Ricardo  on  the  "  reciprocity  "  ex- 
cuse for  the  restrictive  system.  This  excuse  had 
been  offered  by  the  government  many  times  of 
late.  They  said,  "  shall  we  open  our  ports  to  na- 
tions who  close  theirs  against  us?  "  "  Can  we  safely 
reduce  the  tariff  on  French  boots  so  long  as  France 
maintains  a  tariff  against  English  stockings?"  "Can 
we  admit  American  corn,  so  long  as  the  United 
States  excludes  English  crockery?"  This  kind 
of  argument  had  great  weight,  for  it  appealed  to 
national  prejudice,  and  suggested  the  tariff  hos- 
tility of  other  nations.  On  this  reasoning  was 
built  the  doctrine  that  commerce  between  nations 
must  depend  on  treaty.  The  principle  of  it  was 
that  whatever  we  imported  was  an  injury  to  our 
own  people,  consequently  the  importation  must 
be  forbidden,  unless  the  nation  whence  it  came 
would  consent  to  inflict  a  counter-injury  on  its 
own  people  by  importing  something  of  ours  in 
return.  Mr,  Ricardo  made  an  assault  upon  the 
whole  "  reciprocity  "  theory  as  a  useless  and  anti- 


RECIPROCITY.  169 

quated  mistake.  He  moved  an  address  to  the 
Crown,  praying  "  that  the  principle  of  reciprocity 
might  not  be  insisted  on  in  our  commercial  nego- 
tiations, nor  in  the  regulation  of  our  customs 
duties."  He  showed  the  inutility  of  all  the  recent 
commercial  diplomacy  of  England,  and  he  con- 
tended that  nations  could  much  easier  obtain 
what  commercial  objects  might  be  desired  by 
judicious  legislation  regarding  their  own  imports 
rather  than  by  intricate  negotiations  with  other 
nations  as  to  exports.  He  begged  Sir  Robert 
Peel  not  to  continue  a  Protective  System  injurious 
to  the  people,  in  the  expectation  that  other  nations 
might  pay  them  for  relaxing  it.  Mr.  Ewart  sec- 
onded the  motion,  and  said  that  it  was  idle  to 
wait  until  foreign  governments  should  offer  to 
purchase  a  mitigation  of  the  English  restrictive 
system,  and  that  the  time  was  come  when  the 
government  must  adopt  the  principle  recom- 
mended in  the  motion  of  Mr.  Ricardo. 

Once  more  Mr.  Gladstone  was  chosen  to  answer 
the  Free  Traders.  He  opposed  the  motion,  and 
declared  that  the  principle  of  it  was  far  too  broad 
and  sweeping.  He  maintained  that  there  was  an 
economic  and  philosophical  distinction  between 
duties  for  revenue  and  duties  for  protection,  and 
that  so  long  as  that  distinction  remained  foreign 
commerce  must  largely  depend  on  treaty  con- 
cej?sions  regarding  imports.  The  essence  of  Mr. 
Gladstone's  argument  was  that  so  long  as  it  is 
wise  to  exclude  the  products  of  a  foreign  nation 


170  HISTORY  OP  FREE  TRADE. 

by  a  tarifif  levied  for  the  protection  of  our  own 
people  against  the  competition  of  those  products, 
it  must  be  unwise  to  admit  them  unless  that 
nation  will  pay  for  their  admission  by  a  corres- 
ponding concession  in  regard  to  our  productions  ; 
and  that  those  mutual  concessions  must  be  made 
and  guaranteed  by  treaty.  Under  those  circum- 
stances, he  said,  that  it  was  not  wise  to  fetter  the 
government  by  an  abstract  declaration. 

Lord  Howick  answered  Mr.  Gladstone.  He 
was  the  son  of  Earl  Grey,  the  Prime  Minister 
who  carried  the  Reform  Bill  of  1832.  Judging 
by  the  debates  in  Parliament,  Lord  Howick 
appears  to  have  had  a  mental  grasp  of  economic 
principles  quite  unusual  in  an  English  nobleman. 
He  regarded  the  proposition  as  a  practical,  and 
not  an  abstract  one.  He  said,  "  The  word  '  abstract,' 
in  the  government  sense  of  it,  seems  to  mean 
something  that  is  right  in  itself,  but  inconvenient 
to  certain  interests  too  strong  to  be  offended  by 
ministers.  They  have  not  yet  shaken  off  the  old 
mercantile  theory,  that  the  only  valuable  trade  of 
a  country  consisted  in  her  exports,  whereas,  in 
truth,  her  imports  formed  the  most  advantageous 
part  of  her  commerce."  Turning  to  Mr.  Glad- 
stone, Lord  Howick  said,  "  You  ought  to  consider 
at  once,  and  without  reference  to  foreign  countries, 
the  means  of  reducing  your  import  duties  ;  and  if 
foreign  countries  neglect  to  follow  your  example, 
their  own  commercial  loss  will  be  their  punish- 
ment."   So  little  was  the  principle  contended  for 


RECIPROCITY.  171 

understood  at  that  time,  and  so  little  was  the 
interest  in  it,  that  the  House  was  counted  out  in 
the  middle  of  the  debate,  forty  members  not 
being  present. 


CHAPTER    XI. 

AT  THE  ZENITH. 

The  Resolutions  of  Mr.Villiers — Mr.  Ferrand's  Amendment— 
The  Debate — Lord  John  Russell  Declines  to  Vote — Mr. 
Gladstone  Opposes  the  Resolutions — Lord  Howick,  Capt. 
Layard,  and  Mr.  Milner  Gibson  Support  Them — Mr.  Gib- 
son's Argument — Mr.  Cobden  Defends  the  League — Sir 
Robert  Peel  Declares  that  the  Government  will  Adhere 
to  the  Present  Law — The  Resolutions  Defeated  by  204 — 
Despondency  of  Cobden — Character  of  Peel's  Relations  to 
the  Majority — Mr.  Morley's  Criticism  of  the  Debate  An- 
swered— Peel's  Argument  for  Protection — Adjournment 
of  Parliament — Status  of  the  League. 

The  moral  power  of  the  League  in  Parliament 
was  shown  in  the  June  debate  on  the  annual  mo- 
tion of  Mr.  Villiers  for  a  total  repeal  of  the  Corn-; 
Laws,  and  the  physical  power  of  the  administra- 
tion was  shown  in  the  vote  upon  that  motion.  It 
was  as  follows :  "  That  it  is  in  evidence  before  this 
House  that  a  large  proportion  of  her  Majesty's  sub- 
jects are  insufficiently  provided  with  the  first  nec- 
essaries of  life ;  that  nevertheless  a  Corn-Law  is  in 
force  which  restricts  the  supply  of  food,  and  thereby 
lessens  its  abundance ;  that  any  such  restriction  is 
indefensible  in  principle,  injurious  in  operation, 
and  ought  to  be  abolished." 

To  that  motion  Mr.  Ferrand  ofifered  this  amend- 
ment :     "  That  it  is  in  evidence  before  this  House 

172 


AT  THE  ZENITH.  173 

that  a  large  proportion  of  her  Majesty's  subjects 
are  insufficiently  provided  with  the  first  necessa- 
ries of  life ;  that  although  a  Corn-Law  is  in  force 
which  protects  the  supply  of  food  produced  by 
British  capital  and  native  industry,  and  thereby 
increases  its  abundance,  whilst  it  lessens  compe- 
tition in  tlie  markets  of  labor;  nevertheless,  ma- 
chinery has  for  many  years  lessened  among  the 
working  classes  the  means  of  purchasing  the  same, 
and  that  such  Corn-Law,  having  for  its  object  the 
protection  of  British  capital,  and  the  encourage- 
ment of  native  labor,  ought  not  to  be  abolished." 
This  amendment  is  now  looked  upon  in  Eng- 
land with  the  same  curiosity  that  we  gaze  upon 
the  plesiosaurus  or  some  other  skeleton  from 
the  antediluvian  world ;  and  we  exhume  it  just  to 
show  what  fantastic  doctrines  British  statesmen 
and  members  of  Parliament  believed  in  forty  years 
ago  ;  and  the  amazing  fact  remains,  that  every  bit 
of  this  crazy  amendment,  except  the  childish  com- 
plaint against  machinery,  is  sound  Protectionist 
doctrine  in  the  United  States  to-day.  The  obvious 
untruth  that  the  exclusion  of  wheat,  nails,  or  cloth 
from  a  country  increases  the  abundance  within 
that  country  of  wheat,  nails,  and  cloth,  is  as 
vigorously  asserted  by  the  Protectionist  party  in 
America  now  as  it  was  by  Mr.  Ferrand  in  the 
English  Parliament  forty  years  ago.  How  famil- 
iar, too,  is  that  hollow  claptrap,  "  protection  of 
British  capital,  and  encouragement  of  native  labor." 
There  is  also  a  large  number  of  the  American  Pro- 


174  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

tectionist  party  among  the  workingmen  who  be- 
lieve in  the  whole  amendment,  and  who  regard 
the  machinery  dragon  with  the  same  dread  that 
Mr.  Ferrand  regarded  it  in  England. 

This  debate  was  notable  for  several  reasons. 
During  its  progress  the  Whigs  climbed  on  the  fence, 
and  they  stayed  there  for  a  year,  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell declaring  as  he  did  so  that  he  could  not  vote 
to  remove  all  Protection,  and  he  was  not  in  favor 
of  the  existing  law.  Mr.  Miles,  a  radical  Tory, 
called  upon  the  country  gentlemen  to  listen  to  no 
compromise,  but  to  maintain  the  law  as  it  stood. 
This  debate  revealed  a  more  important  fact,  which 
was,  that  the  politics  of  the  country  was  no  longer 
a  contest  for  office  between  the  Whigs  on  the  one 
side  and  the  Tories  on  the  other,  but  was  a  life  and 
death  struggle  between  the  Protectionist  majority 
inside  Parliament,  and  the  League  outside.  It  was 
significant  that  many  of  the  Tories,  instead  of 
directing  their  arguments  to  the  question  before 
the  House,  spent  their  time  in  criticising  the 
League  and  denouncing  its  methods. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  and  Mr.  Gladstone  were  the  chief 
speakers  on  the  Protectionist  side.  Mr.  Gladstone 
claimed  a  longer  trial  for  the  existing  law.  He  con- 
tended that  the  experience  of  its  operation  had 
fully  vindicated  the  statesmanship  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  had  realized  all  their  expectations.  He 
condemned  the  agitation  of  the  League  as  product- 
ive of  the  most  mischievous  consequences,  and 
declared  that  if  Parliament  continued  to  argue  the 


AT  THE   ZENITH.  176 

question  it  would  unsettle  business,  and  be  inju- 
rious to  every  interest  in  the  country,  and  espec- 
ially to  the  public  credit.  Amid  great  cheering 
from  the  Tory  side,  he  claimed  stability  for  the 
decisions  of  Parliament,  and  trusted  that  the  House 
would  not  disturb  the  settlement  that  had  been 
arrived  at  after  a  fair  examination  and  adjustment 
of  conflicting  interests,  and  which  adjustment  had 
been  put  into  law  by  the  compromise  measures 
of  1842. 

Lord  Howick  was  in  favor  of  the  motion.  Re- 
ferring to  the  unpleasant  fact  that  the  men  who 
profited  by  the  Corn-Laws  were  members  of  both 
houses  of  the  legislature,  he  said,  "  The  root  of 
good  government  is  sapped  away  when  it  is  once 
discovered  that  those  in  whom  political  power  is 
centered  are  perverting  it  to  their  own  purposes. 
When  the  conviction  seizes  the  people  that  the 
Corn-Laws  exist  only  for  the  few,  I  warn  you  that 
the  days  of  the  law  are  numbered.  The  discon- 
tent of  the  people  is  the  result  of  class  legislation ; 
that  is  what  they  say,  and  I  think  they  are  right." 

Captain  Layard  made  a  strong  speech  in  favor 
of  the  resolution.  In  the  course  of  it  he  gave  an 
amusing  illustration  of  the  Protective  System. 
He  said  that  when  he  was  in  China  he  had  been 
shocked  at  the  barbarous  custom  of  contracting 
the  feet  of  the  children.  Expressing  to  some 
Chinese  gentlemen  of  his  acquaintance  his 
surprise  at  the  continuance  of  it,  they  apol- 
ogized   for    it    by    explaining    that    there    were 


176  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

certain  old  women  who  made  their  living  by 
binding  and  contracting  those  children's  feet,  and 
that  the  welfare  of  the  old  women  required  the 
maintenance  of  the  practice. 

Mr.  Milner  Gibson  defended  the  League.  That 
there  might  be  no  misunderstanding  of  its  objects 
he  declared  that  it  sought  Free  Trade  not  only  in 
corn  but  in  everything.  He  quoted  from  Paley 
that  restraint  of  trade  is  an  evil  per  se,  and  that  the 
burthen  of  the  argument  in  each  particular  case  is 
on  him  by  whom  the  restraint  is  defended.  Those 
who  interfered  with  the  freedom  of  exchange  were 
bound  to  show  the  advantages  of  their  theories. 
In  answer  to  the  "  home  market "  argument  Mr. 
Gibson  asked  this  question,  "  Do  English  pur- 
chasers give  more  for  Manchester  cotton  goods 
than  the  American  purchaser  gives?  If  not,  what 
is  the  advantage  of  the  home  market  to  the 
Manchester  man?" 

It  may  be  a  little  humiliating  to  the  English 
aristocracy,  but  the  fact  ought  to  be  mentioned 
that  the  stupidest  men  that  figured  in  Parliament 
were  lords.  In  a  debate  where  Peel,  Gladstone, 
Cobden,  Bright,  Villiers,  Gibson,  and  men  of  that 
character  took  part,  it  was  extremely  comical  to 
see  a  lord  jump  up  as  Lord  Rendlesham  did,  and 
maintain  that  high  rents  were  an  element  of  na- 
tional prosperity,  and  that  the  fall  of  prices  which 
would  reduce  rents  would  lower  profits  and  wages. 
The  rate  of  wages  was  regulated  by  the  price  of 
corn.  To  reduce  wages,  he  said,  was  the  object 
of  the  motion,  and  the  purpose  of  the  League. 


AT  THE   ZENITH.  177 

Mr.  Cobden  having  indorsed  the  broad  platform 
just  laid  down  by  Mr.  Gibson,  reminded  the  House 
that  it  was  not  the  League  that  was  on  trial 
but  the  law.  He  said,  "You  cannot  put  down 
the  League  by  calling  names,  nor  by  such  childish 
displays  as  have  been  seen  to-night.  It  was  said 
that  the  agriculturists  could  not  meet  taxation 
without  Protection,  but  if  the  manufacturers 
were  therefore  to  pay  the  taxes  of  the  landlords 
who  were  to  pay  the  taxes  of  the  manufacturers, 
and  how  were  you  to  requite  those  classes  who  are 
neither  landlords  nor  farmers  or  manufacturers?" 
*'  I  am  for  Free  Trade  in  everything,"  said  Mr.  Cob- 
den, "and  if  the  Protection  on  corn  is  destroyed,  the 
Protection  on  everything  else  will  break  down  with 
it."  Then  pointing  straight  at  the  seats  where  sat 
the  ministers,  he  said,  "  The  Treasury  bench  has 
evaded  the  question ;  Lord  Stanley  1ms  never  met 
it,  and  I  now  challenge  him  to  satisfy  the  Lan- 
<;ashire  manufacturers  of  the  justice  of  Protection." 
As  Lord  Stanley's  father  owned  a  large  part  of 
Lancashire,  and  derived  enormous  revenues  from 
his  possessions  there,  this  challenge  was  one  of 
those  ad  hominevi  thrusts  in  which  Cobden  was 
more  skillful  than  any  other  man  in  Parliament. 
Lord  Stanley  did  not  reply. 

Sir  Rol^ert  Peel  then  rose  to  answer  Cobden. 
He  accepted  the  broad  issue  presented  by  Milner 
Gibson,  and  agreed  that  the  repeal  of  the  protec- 
tive duties  upon  corn  meant  the  withdrawal  of 
Protection  from  manufactures,  and  from  shipping 


178  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

too.  This  he  said  would  be  productive  of  dis- 
aster to  the  country,  and  of  almost  certain  ruin 
to  Ireland.  He  made  some  amusement,  and 
was  loudly  cheered  when  he  pointed  tc 
the  empty  bench  on  the  front  opposition  side 
where  Lord  John  Russell  and  the  Whig  leaders 
usually  sat.  He  criticised  Lord  John  Russell's 
course  in  declining  to  vote,  and  taunted  the  Whigs 
with  dodging  the  question.  Sir  Robert  adopted  a 
rather  exultant  manner  towards  the  League,  and 
said  that  their  mitigated  tone  indicated  that  they 
felt  that  they  had  outstripped  the  feelings  of  the 
people,  and  could  no  longer  stand  upon  the  ground 
they  had  so  imprudently  attempted  to  occupy. 
He  declared  himself  in  favor  of  Protection,  not  for 
the  sake  of  the  landlords,  but  from  a  conviction  of 
the  evils  which  the  removal  of  prohibition  would 
inflict  upon  the  general  interests  of  the  country, 
domestic  and  colonial.  He  contended  that  the 
present  law  had  worked  well,  and  should  have  a 
further  trial.  Amid  uproarious  cheering  from  the 
"  country  gentlemen,"  he  declared  that  it  was  the 
intention  of  the  government  to  adhere  to  the  present 
/  law.     There  was  a  fatal  weakness  in  his  argument, 

/  and  he  gave  away  his  party  and  his  case  together 

I  when  he  said  that  he  would  not  contest  the  prin- 

\  ciples  of  Mr.  Villiers  in  the  abstract,  "  for  they 

might  in  the  abstract  be  correct,  and  justified  by 
philosophical  considerations." 

The  Tories  did  not  worry  themselves  over  the 
moral  condemnation  of  "  Protection  "  contained  in 


AT   THE    ZENITH  179 

those  admissions.  All  they  cared  about  was  the 
promise  of  the  Prime  Minister  that  monopoly 
should  not  be  disturbed.  They  were  so  exultant 
that  when  Mr.  Br'ght  rose  to  address  the  House 
they  listened  to  him  with  much  impatience,  and 
finally  coughed  him  down.  Mr.  Villiers  in  clos- 
ing the  debate  made  a  remarkable  prediction. 
After  referring  to  the  fact  that  nobody  had  dared 
to  controvert  his  arguments,  he  told  the  '*  country 
gentlemen,"  who  cheered  the  Prime  Minister  so 
vigorously,  that  Sir  Robert  Peel  had  made  a 
similar  speech  to  them  in  1839,  and  had  afterwards 
thrown  them  overboard.  The  same  thing  would 
happen  again.  This  prophesy  was  literally  ful- 
filled within  two  years.  The  motion  was  lost  by 
328  against  124,  a  stolid  majority  of  204,  which 
disheartened  even  Cobden  whose  high  spirits  had 
never  failed  him  since  the  organization  of  the 
League. 

When  the  vote  was  taken  at  the  close  of  the 
great  debate  of  1844,  the  dawn  of  the  summer 
day  was  just  peeping  through  the  windows  of  the 
House  of  Commons.  It  was  greeted  by  the 
Ijoisterous  cheers  of  the  Protectionist  majority, 
stimulated  not  only  by  victory,  but  by  wine. 
Those  cheers  smote  the  very  heart  of  Cobden,  and 
he  sat  there  absolutely  stunned  by  the  blow.  Five 
years  of  incessant  labor  night  and  day  had  told 
heavily  upon  him,  and  mind  and  body  needed 
rest  together.  There  was  another  man  there,  how- 
ever, who  was  smitten  harder  than  Cobden,  upon 


180  HISTORY   OF  FREE   TRADE. 

whose  conscience  this  noisy  cheering  struck  with 
a  mocking  sound.  This  was  the  great  minister 
who  had  led  the  exultant  majority  to  victory. 
He,  and  he  alone,  heard  in  those  cheers  the  knell 
of  the  noisy  monopoly  that  was  making  them.. 
He  knew  that  the  flushed  men  he  commanded 
last  night  were  utterly  besotted  and  selfish ;  that 
the  wants  of  the  people  were  nothing  to  them,  so 
long  as  they  could  enjoy  the  unjust  profits  of 
"Protection."  He  knew  that  if  they  had  con- 
stituted the  "  landed  interest "  in  Canaar  at  the 
time  of  the  dearth,  they  would  have  demanded  a 
high  protective  tariflf  against  the  "  pauper  "  cojn 
of  Egypt  and  the  rich  alluvium  of  the  Nile.  In 
the  argument  he  made  for  them  he  knew  that  he 
Avas  wrong.  The  disputant  who  concedes  that  tho 
position  of  his  adversary  is  "  correct  in  the 
abstract  and  justified  by  philosophical  considera- 
tions," knows  that  he  himself  is  in  a  false  posi- 
tion ;  and  if  he  is  a  conscientious  man  it  will  not 
take  him  long  to  reach  the  platform  where  his 
adversary  stands. 

While  Cobden  sat  in  dismay  gazing  at  the  dense 
majority  of  204,  and  believing  it  to  be  solid,  Peel 
knew  that  it  was  hollow ;  while  Cobden  was  fear- 
ful that  the  League  had  failed,  Peel  knew  that  it 
had  succeeded ;  that  it  was  fast  becoming  irresist- 
ible ;  that  ere  long  it  would  conquer  all  opposi- 
tion, and  that  not  even  the  British  monarchy 
could  safely  stand  in  its  way.  We  all  know  now, 
what  nobody  knew  then,  that  the  only  arguments 


AT  THE   ZENITH.  181 

that  made  any  impression  upon  Peel  in  that  debate 
were  not  those  of  any  member  of  his  own  party, 
nor  of  the  Whigs,  but  only  those  of  Cobden,  Villiers, 
Bright,  and  Gibson.  In  this  hour  of  its  great 
triumph  the  Tory  chieftain  knew  that  the  end  of 
"  Protection  "  was  at  hand. 

Mr.  Morley,  in  his  "  Life  of  Cobden,"  describes 
the  struggle  made  by  the  Free  Traders  that  night 
as  a  "  very  hollow  performance."  There  is  really 
no  just  ground  for  that  opinion.  It  is  only  the 
despondency  of  Cobden  re-acting  upon  his  bio- 
grapher. It  is  based  on  the  serious  physical 
defeat  inflicted  that  night  upon  the  Free  Traders^ 
and  the  air  of  superiority  and  conquest  assumed 
by  the  Protectionists.  These  airs  were  largely 
affectation  and  assumption,  for  they  knew  that 
the  moral  triumph  of  the  debate  was  not  on  their 
side.  The  sneer  of  Mr.  Gladstone  that  "  the 
League  is  a  thing  of  no  practical  moment  now, 
its  parade  and  ceremonial  are  the  most  important 
parts  of  it,"  was  merely  a  bit  of  sarcastic  tinsel 
ornamenting  a  "  very  hollow  "  defense  of  the  Pro- 
tective System.  He  certainly  was  too  wise  to 
believe  it.  The  fact  that  Mr.  Gladstone  and  the 
Tories  wandered  from  the  question  to  attack  the 
League,  is  proof  that  they  were  overmatched  in 
argument,  and  surely  a  "  hollow  performance " 
would  not  make  the  Prime  Minister  concede  that 
his  opj)onents  had  on  their  side  all  the  philosoj)hy 
of  the  question.  Milner  Gibson  was  very  strong 
that  night.     He  planted  himself  on  the  solid  rock 


182  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRA^^. 

of  the  Creator's  grand  design,  and  man's  adapta- 
tion to  it.  He  declared  that  to  help  one  another, 
to  be  friends  with  one  another,  and  to  trade  with 
one  another,  is  the  very  law  of  human  civilization ; 
and  he  demanded  that  those  who  imposed 
restraints  upon  trade  should  give  good  reasons 
why. 

How  did  the  Tories  answer  him?  Why,  they 
said  that  they  had  enjoyed  Protection  so  long  that 
they  could  not  live  without  it ;  thus  cooly  violat- 
ing a  maxim  of  the  law  that  no  man  shall  take 
advantage  of  his  own  wrong  ;  in  other  words,  they 
contended  that  a  wrong  that  had  existed  for  a 
long  time,  became,  at  last,  a  right.  But  Mr. 
Gibson  showed  that  no  length  of  time  would 
sanctify  a  wrong,  and  that  the  monopoly  of  the 
landlords  had  never  been  a  quiet  possession  and 
undisturbed  enjoyment ;  that  it  had  always  been 
protested  against,  and  could  never  ripen  into  a 
jgood  title. 

How  did  Peel  answer  him  ?  By  advancing  the 
popular  American  mistake  that  "  Protection  "  is 
a  system  in  which  all  parties  are  interested ;  that 
it  had  become  woven  into  the  political  organiza- 
tion of  the  country,  and  that  it  gave  to  all 
industries  an  equal  and  mutual  assistance;  that 
the  agriculturists  were  interested  in  "  Protection  " 
to  manufactures,  that  the  manufacturers  were 
interested  in  "  Protection  "  to  agriculture,  ai.d  that 
both  of  them  were  interested  in  "  Protection  "  to 
shipping  and  commerce,  that  all  must  stand  or 


AT  THE   ZENITH.  ISS- 

fall  together,  and  that  although  the  motion  was 
only  aimed  at  corn,  yet  if  Protection  should  be 
withdrawn  from  that,  it  must  be  withdrawn  from 
everything  else,  which  would  be  disastrous  to  the 
country.  But  Mr.  Cobden  showed  in  that  very 
debate  thit  there  cannot  be  any  such  thing  as 
universal  Protection,  because  if  every  interest  in^ 
a  community  is  protected  equally,  then  nobody  is 
protected  at  all.  Protection  being  a  tax  levied  for 
the  benefit  of  certain  trades  and  occupations, 
somebody  has  to  pay  it,  or  the  object  of  it  fails. 
To  form  ourselves  into  a  circle,  and  each  man> 
take  a  tax  from  the  pocket  of  his  neighbor  on  the 
right,  and  drop  it  into  the  pocket  of  his  neighbor 
on  the  left,  does  no  good,  because,  when  the  start- 
ing place  is  reached  again,  then  nobody  has  made 
anything  at  all. 

Shortly  after  this  debate  Parliament  adjourned, 
and  did  not  meet  again  until  February,  1845.  The 
temperament  of  Cobden  was  not  of  a  character  to 
remain  despondent  long,  and  besides,  there  was 
no  occasion  for  discouragement.  The  confession 
of  the  Prime  Minister  that  Free  Trade  principles 
were  riglit  in  the  abstract,  had  a  great  effect  out- 
side the  walls  of  Parliament.  Many  men  thought 
that  if  that  were  true  they  might  possibly  be  wise 
in  the  actual  also.  During  the  recess  there  were 
great  accessions  to  the  League.  To  some  people 
who  looked  only  on  the  surface  of  affairs,  it 
seemed  as  if  there  was  a  lull  in  the  Corn-Law 
agitation,  and  that  the  better  times  had  deprived 


184  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

the  League  of  its  strength.  But  the  League  might 
well  claim,  and  did  claim,  that  the  improved  con- 
dition of  the  country  was  due  to  tiie  modification 
of  the  Protective  System  in  the  tariff  of  1842,  and 
that  if  the  country  should  discard  "  Protection  " 
altogether,  the  good  times  would  be  better  still. 


%^ 


CHAPTER   XII. 
A  SURPLUS  REVENUE. 

The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  Shows  a  Favorable  Bal- 
ance Sheet — His  Plan  to  Reduce  the  Surplus  Revenue — 
Lord  John  Russell  Ridicules  the  Discriminatioa  Against 
Slave  Grown  Sugar — State  of  the  Country  at  the  Be- 
ginning of  1845 — Increasing  Prosperity  in  all  Branches 
of  Business-  Clamor  of  the  "  Interests  "  for  Favors  in  the 
Reduction  of  the  Tariflf — Lord  Beaconsfield's  Opinion  of 
the  Strength  of  the  Administration — The  Free  Trade 
Bazaar  at  Covent  Garden  Theatre — The  Opening  of  Par- 
liament— The  Queen  Rejoices  in  th3  Prosperity  of  the 
Country — The  Duke  of  Richmond  Demands  Relief  for 
the  Agricultural  Classes — Mr.  Gladstone  Leaves  the 
Cabinet. 

One  element  of  the  Tory  glorification  in  the 
session  of  1844  was  the  good  looking  budget 
which  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  was  able 
to  show,  and  there  was  an  immense  crowd  in  the 
House  of  Commons  on  the  night  of  the  29th  of 
April  to  hear  his  financial  statement.  The  credit 
of  the  country,  too,  had  been  improving  under 
Sir  Robert  Peel's  administration.  In  April,  1844, 
the  government  three-per-cents  sold  at  ])ar,  for  the 
first  time  since  the  year  1749,  and  the  revenues 
for  the  year  showed  a  surplus  instead  of  a  defi- 
ciency. There  was  an  air  of  excusable  exultation 
about  Mr.  Goulburn,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 

185 


186  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

chequer,  when  he  laid  his  annual  balancei-sheet 
upon  the  table  of  the  House  of  Commons,  for  the 
scrutiny  of  Parliament  and  the  country.  He  had 
a  surplus  in  the  treasury  of  about  fifteen  million 
dollars,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  proposed  to 
deal  with  it  is  well  worthy  the  examination  of 
American  statesmen,  who  have  also  to  solve  the 
problem  of  how  to  dispose  of  a  surplus  revenue. 
Although  Mr.  Goulburn  was  a  high  Tory  and  a 
Protectionist,  it  never  occurred  to  him  that  the 
wise  thing  would  be  to  waste  the  surplus  revenue  in 
order  to  preserve  the  system  of  tariff  taxation ;  that 
the  duty  of  the  party  in  power  was  to  invent 
schemes  of  bounty  and  plunder  to  absorb  the  sur- 
plus, and  thus  remove  the  reason  for  an  amendment 
of  the  tariff.  Strangely  enough,  the  last  thing  that 
occurs  to  the  mind  of  an  American  statesman 
under  those  circumstances,  was  the  first  thing 
that  occurred  to  the  English  statesman,  and  he 
accompanied  his  budget  with  a  plan  to  reduce 
tariff  taxation  to  the  amount  of  the  surplus.  He 
also  put  his  reductions  where  they  would  do  the 
most  good,  chiefly  on  the  necessaries  of  life,  and 
the  raw  materials  of  manufactures.  He  proposed 
to  reduce  the  tariff  on  coffee  four  cents  per  pound, 
and  he  made  a  considerable  advance  towards  a 
"  free  breakfast  table  "  by  reducing  the  duty  on 
sugar.  He  put  vinegar  on  the  free  list.  There 
were  fools  who  sneered  at  this,  and  laughed  at 
**  cheap  pickles,"  but  Mr.  Goulburn  was  not  think- 
ing of  pickles  at  all.     Vinegar  was  largely  used  in 


A  SURPLUS  REVENUE.  187 

manufactures,  especially  in  calico  printing,  and 
that's  what  he  was  thinking  of.  He  made  a  re- 
duction of  seven  shillings  per  cwt.  on  currants. 
To  some  persons  this  may  seem  like  relieving  the 
tax  on  luxuries ;  but  those  who  know  that  plum- 
pudding  is  not  a  luxury  to  an  Englishman,  but 
one  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  will  see  in  a  mo- 
ment the  value  of  this  reduction.  In  the  manu- 
facture of  a  genuine  dyspeptic,  indigestible  plum- 
pudding,  currants  are  only  secondary  in  impor- 
tance to  plums  themselves. 

The  most  important  article,  however,  which 
Mr.  Goulburn  proposed  to  strike  out  of  the  tariff 
was  wool.  The  duty  on  this  article  he  proposed 
to  abolish  altogether.  The  plan  of  encouraging 
"  sheep  husbandry  "  by  a  high  tariff  on  wool  had 
failed.  There  were  plenty  of  sentimental  patriots 
who  still  maintained  the  principle  of  protecting 
the  high-toned  and  expensive  sheep  of  old 
England  from  the  competition  of  the  pauper 
sheep  of  the  United  States  and  Brazil ;  but 
their  theories  had  almost  passed  out  of  the 
practical  statesmanship  of  the  country.  The 
exclusion  of  foreign  wool  from  England  had 
failed  1o  make  high  prices  permanent,  for  these 
reasons  :  it  had  crippled  the  supply  of  raw  ma- 
terial to  the  wool  manufacturer,  the  spasmodic 
high  prices  of  the  home  product  liad  gone  into 
his  cloth ;  this  had  shut  him  out  of  the  foreign 
markets.  High  prices  could  not  be  maintained  in 
the  liome  market,  because  only  a  select  portion  of 


188  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

the  people  could  afi'ord  to  pay  them.  As  the  de- 
mand for  cloth  decreased,  the  consumption  of 
wool  declined,  and  at  last  the  price  of  wool  went 
down  below  the  low  water  mark  of  fair  profit, 
not  because  of  the  abundance  of  wool  in  the  mar- 
ket, but  because  of  the  poverty  of  customers.  The 
attempt  to  make  high  prices  of  wool  by  law,  and 
keep  them  up,  had  proved  as  futile  as  would  an 
act  of  Parliament  prescribing  how  many  pounds 
of  wool  a  ram  should  wear  in  his  overcoat.  The 
chief  defect  of  Mr.  Goulburn's  plan  was  that  in 
reducing  the  duties  on  sugar  he  had  preserved  the 
protective  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  sugar  of 
the  British  colonies.  He  gave  the  old  excuse  for 
this,  and  said  that  his  object  was  to  prevent  sugar, 
"the  produce  of  countries  tainted  with  slavery,  from 
being  imported  into  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.' 

Lord  John  Russell  ridiculed  this  pretension, 
and  said,  "  Surely  it  is  very  new  to  erect  a  pulpit 
in  the  custom  house,  and  convert  all  the  tide- 
waiters  and  appraisers  into  abolition  preachers." 
It  seems  a  little  foolish  now,  but  there  were  man}' 
good  men  in  England,  and  wise  men  too,  men 
like  Dr.  Lusliington  and  Mr.  O'Connell,  who  long 
believed  that  the  commercial  code  of  Britain 
might  be  made  to  do  missionary  work  among  the 
heathen  ;  and  that  it  might  be  '"  so  adjusted  "  as  to 
reward  good  nations  and  punish  bad  ones.  Lord 
John  Russell  pointed  out  the  inconsistency  of  Mr. 
Goulburn,  who  was  discouraging  slavery  in  Brazil 
by  an  abolition    discrimination   against  her  sugar, 


A   SURPLUS   REVENUE.  189 

and  encouraging  it  by  a  pro-slavery  reduction  in 
favor  of  her  coflfee.  He  bantered  Sir  Robert  Peel 
a  little  about  his  tariff  of  1842,  wherein  he  had 
applied  the  principle  of  "  buying  in  the  cheapest 
market"  to  onion  seed,  spices  and  herrings,  and  lie 
hoped  that  the  time  was  not  fur  distant  when  lie 
would  apply  it  to  the  essential  food  of  the  people. 
These  criticisms  were  not  very  serious.  They  fell 
harmless  on  a  public  ledger  that  showed  a  favor- 
able balance,  and  the  "  noble  Lord  "  himself  ad- 
mitted in  conclusion  that  nothing  was  i>roposed 
by  Mr.  Goulburn  which  was  likely  to  be  very 
dangerous  to  the  financial  interests  of  the  country. 
The  year  1845  opened  favorably  for  the  govern- 
ment and  the  people.  Affairs  both  foreign  and 
domestic  looked  bright  and  promising;  and  the 
tone  of  the  press  generally  was  cheerful  and  en- 
couraging. A  non-{)artisan  paper  of  great  influ- 
ence, in  reviewing  the  ])ast  year,  said,  "  As  a 
nation,  we  have  been  prosperous;  peace  and  plenty 
have  blessed  the  land,  and  beneath  their  happy 
influence  commerce  has  flourished.  Nearly  every 
branch  of  industry  has  been  employed;  the  rev- 
enue has  iiK Ti'ased  ;  and  the  abundance  of 
capital  seeking  for  investment  created  a  competi- 
tion that  enabled  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer 
to  dictate  terms  to  the  ])ublic  creditor."  The 
Annual  Register,  speaking  at  the  end  of  the  year, 
described  the  beginning  of  it  thus,  "The  com- 
mencement of  the  year  184r)  may  be  described  as 
presenting  on    the    whole  a    more    than    usually 


190  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

prosperous  state  of  affairs.  The  harvest  had  been 
a  productive  one,  trade  was  l>risk,  the  manufac- 
turing classes  well  employed.  The  revenue  gave 
symptoms  of  continued  advance.  The  question 
of  the  Corn-Laws  formed  the  greatest  exception 
to  unanimity,  the  continued  exertions  of  the  Anti- 
Corn-Law  League  still  occasioning  disquiet  to  the 
agricultural  interest." 

Again  the  government  was  confronted  with  the 
knotty  problem  of  a  "surplus  revenue;"  and 
again  the  Ministers  must  determine  what  to  do 
with  it.  The  problem  was  not  an  easy  one  to 
solve,  on  account  of  the  rivalry  of  "interests," 
each  clamoring  to  be  favored  in  the  anticipated 
reduction  of  taxation.  As  Sir  Robert  Peel  had 
obtained  from  Parliament  in  1842  the  concession  of 
an  income  tax  to  supply  the  temporary  deficiency 
of  the  revenue  for  that  year ;  and  as  it  had  been 
granted  for  three  years  only,  the  people  who  paid  it 
naturally  insisted  that  as  the  three  years  was  about 
to  expire,  and  there  was  a  surplus  in  the  treasury, 
the  income  tax  should  cease  ;  but  Sir  Robert  Peel 
had  already  made  up  his  mind  that  it  was  a  just 
tax,  and  that  he  would  continue  it  three  years 
longer.  Strangely  enough,  although  he  was  still 
the  leader  of  the  Protectionist  party,  he  retained 
the  income  tax  for  Free  Trade  reasons.  He  had 
noticed  that  the  protective  import  duties  were  a 
far  greater  tax  upon  the  people  and  their  indus- 
tries than  the  amount  that  went  hito  the  treasury, 
and  he  had  observed  that  the  income  tax  relieved 


A   SURPLUS   REVENUE.  191 

this  burden  in  proportion.  Therefore,  what  he 
had  obtained  in  1842  as  a  mere  expedient,  he  de- 
termined in  1845  to  keep  on  principle.  Although 
nobody  knew  anything  about  it,  an  early  sus- 
picion was  abroad  that  the  income  tax  would  not 
be  repealed ;  and  as  it  was  known  from  the  quar- 
terly returns  of  the  treasury,  that  there  was  a  sur- 
plus, the  "interests"  immediately  began  to  agitate, 
each  for  a  remission  of  the  tax  that  pressed  upon 
itself.  The  Ministers  were  overwhelmed  with 
letters  of  counsel,  advising  them  what  duties 
ought  to  be  lowered,  and  what  ought  to  be  abol- 
ished. The  agricultural  "interests"  insisted  on 
the  repeal  of  the  malt  tax,  which  pressed  heavily 
upon  them.  The  glass  makers  declared  that  the 
window  tax  ought  to  be  abolished,  because  it  was 
an  unjust  burden  upon  their  industry.  The 
glaziers  went  with  them  thus  far,  and  a  little  fur- 
ther; they  rei^uired  not  only  the  repeal  of  the 
window  tax,  but  also  the  removal  of  the  protect- 
ive tariff"  on  glass;  and  right  there,  at  the  forks  of 
the  road,  the  glaziers  and  the  glass  makers  parted 
company.  The  grocery  "interests"  wanted  a 
reduction  of  the  duties  on  tea  and  coffee  and 
sugar,  for  they  had  noticed  that  the  slight  reduc- 
tion of  duty  on  those  articles  made  by  the  tariff" 
of  1842  had  greatly  increased  their  business. 
Naturally  enough,  every  "interest"  wanted  its 
own  special  burdens  removed,  and  the  govern- 
ment found  that  how  to  deal  with  a  surplus  was  a 
more  embarrassing  (juestion  than  how  to  sup])ly  a 
(leticiency. 


192  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

Lord  Beaconsfield,  in  his  biography  of  Lord 
George  Bentinck,  expresses  the  opinion  that  the 
improved  condition  of  the  country  in  1845  had 
rendered  the  League  powerless  to  disturb  the  ad- 
ministration, and  that  Sir  Robert  Peel  might  have 
defied  it  if  the  bad  harvest  had  not  come;  and 
that  his  government  could  have  stood  against 
even  "  the  persuasive  ingenuit}^  of  Cobden."  But 
this  is  a  superficial  view  of  the  matter,  and  is  the 
opinion  of  the  most  spiteful  Protectionist  then  in 
Parliament,  every  one  of  whose  predictions  was 
falsified  by  the  event.  The  agitation  may  not 
have  been  so  boisterous  on  the  surface,  but  it  was 
deeper  down.  The  crowded  meetings  at  Covent 
Garden  Theatre  showed  that  the  League  was  still 
formidable;  and  a  Ladies'  Bazaar  held  there  in  the 
spring  of  1845,  netted  over  a  hundred  thousand 
dollars  to  the  funds  of  the  League.  But  the  most 
convincing  proof  of  all  was  furnished  by  Sir 
Robert  Peel  himself,  as  soon  as  Parliament  con- 
vened. When  the  Queen  opened  Parliament  in 
February,  1845,  she  said,  "Increased  activity 
pervades  almost  every  branch  of  manufacture. 
Trade  and  commerce  have  been  extended  at  home 
and  abroad."  ...,''!  congratulate  you  on 
the  success  of  the  measures,  which,  three  years 
since,  were  adopted  by  Parliament  for  the  purpose 
of  supplying  the  deficiency  in  the  public  rev- 
enue." .  .  .  .  "  The  act  which  passed  at  that  time 
for  imposing  a  tax  upon  income  will  shortly  ex- 
pire.    It  will  be  for  you  in  your  wisdom  to  deter- 


A  SURPLUS  REVENUE.  193 

mine  whether  it  may  not  be  expedient  to  continue 
its  operation  for  a  further  period." 

Those  remarks  indicated  that  the  revenue 
reform  policy  was  to  be  persevered  in ;  and  they 
gave  positive  notice  to  the  country  that  the  income 
tax  was  not  to  be  repealed.  Scarcely  had  the 
usual  address  in  answer  to  the  royal  speech  been 
moved  and  seconded  in  the  House  of  Lords,  when 
up  rose  the  Duke  of  Richmond,  and  began  to 
whine  like  a  mendicant  about  the  distress  of  the 
"  agricultural  classes."  These  were  the  very 
"  classes  "  that  had  been  "  protected  "  by  the  oner- 
ous taxation  of  other  "classes"  for  many  years; 
and  now  they  came  to  Parliament  begging  for 
relief.  This  duke  who  was  passing  the  hat  around 
for  them  was  the  owner  of  tens  of  thousands  of 
acres  of  the  finest  land  in  England  and  Scotland. 
He  had  a  palace  in  the  loveliest  and  most  fertile 
part  of  England,  and  it  took  ten  miles  of  wall  to  en- 
close the  park  around  liis  mansion.  To  keep  up 
the  style  and  extravagance  of  a  prince,  he  impov- 
erished hundreds  of  liis  tenants,  and  then  asked 
Parliament  to  relieve  them  at  some  other  neoule 's 
cost. 

In  the  debate  on  the  address  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  some  of  the  "l.inded  gentry "  there 
talked  like  the  Duke  of  Richmond  in  the  Houso 
of  Lords,  and  they  were  severely  sluni:;  hy  a 
remark  of  Lord  John  Russell,  who,  in  cr  ti(\sing 
the  royal  speeeii  because  it  said  notliing  al)ouL  the 
Corn-Tjaws,    declared    t'.iat   '"  Proteet'.oii     was    tlie 


194  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

bane    of   agriculture,  ratter  than  its  support." 
This  caused  Mr.  Miles  to  ask  him,  "  Why,  if  he 
thought  so,  he  had  proposed  a  protective  duty  of 
eight  shillings  a  quarter  upon  corn?      Had  he 
found  it  convenient  to  alter  his  views,  and  ally 
himself  with  the  League?"   This  was  a  fair  hit,  for 
his  Lordship  was  not  yet  ready  to  join  the  League. 
It  is  not  certain  that  Lord  John  Russell  was  con- 
templating any  Free  Trade  movement,  but  it  is 
highly  probable  that  Peel  suspected  him,   and 
determined  to  anticipate  him;  for  in  the  debate  on 
the  address,  he  announced,  contrary  to  all  pre- 
cedent, that  he  would  not  wait  until  April  or 
May  to  make  his  financial  statement,  but  would 
present  it  to  the   House  next  week.      This,   of 
course,  compelled  Lord  John  Russell  to  postpone 
his   contemplated   movement,  whatever  it  might 
be.     Sir  Robert  Peel  was  a  little  exultant  in  his 
manner,  especially  towards  Lord  John  Russell,  to 
whom  he  personally  addressed  the  last  part  of  his 
speech.     "  The  House  will  then  have  an  oppor- 
tunity," he  said,  "  of  determining  whether  under 
us  the  condition  of  the  country  has  deteriorated, 
or  whether  we  continue  to  possess  that  confidence, 
Avithout  which  we  could  not  usefully  conduct  its 
affairs,  and  without  which — the  noble  Lord  will 
pardon  me  for  saying — no  government  ought  to 
remain   in   office."       Mr.   Villiers,  however,  was 
determined     not    to    allow    the    government    to 
monopolize     all     the     congratulations,     and     he 
reminded  Sir  Robert  Peel  that  the  pros2)erity  of 


A   SURPLUS   REVENUE  195 

the  country  was  owing  to  the  relaxation  of  tne  Pro- 
tective System. 

The  government  was  somewhat  weakened  at 
the  commencement  of  1845,  by  the  loss  of  Mr. 
Gladstone,  who  had  withdrawn  from  the  cabinet 
because  of  a  difference  with  Sir  Robert  Peel  on 
the  proposition  to  make  a  grant  of  money  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  College  of  Maynooth,  in  Ireland. 
The  difference  was  not  so  much  a  matter  of  pres- 
ent opinion  as  of  an  old  opinion  which  unfortu- 
nately was  recorded  against  Mr.  Gladstone  in  a 
book.  In  fact  he  had  modified  his  opinion  and  was 
now  willing  to  support  the  grant,  but  not  as  a  min- 
ister of  the  crown.  Here  was  more  evidence  that  a 
politician  should  never  write  a  book  until  his 
public  life  is  closed.  Mr.  Gladstone  had  written  a 
book  in  former  days  against  granting  money  to 
Maynooth  ;  and  that  book  drove  him  from  office. 
He  could  not  retain  office  and  support  principles 
which  he  had  condemned  in  his  book,  because 
such  a  course  would  subject  him  to  the  charge  of 
acting  from  mercenary  motives,  and  of  sacrificing 
principle  for  place.  He  was  therefore  compelled 
to  resign.  There  were  some  people  who  thought 
that  he  did  not  approve  of  the  contemplated 
reduction  of  the  sugar  duties,  and  that  he  was 
glad  to  leave  tlie  cabinet  on  the  Maynooth  ques- 
tion, rather  than  on  a  question  of  commercial 
policy.  There  is  not  much  ground  for  tliin  oi)in- 
ion,  for  the  ])rol)alMlity  is  that  Mr.  Gladstone  was 
already  a  Free  Trader. 


A   SURPLUS   REVENUE.  196 

Two  days  after  the  opening  of  Parliament  there 
was  a  very  excited  and  somewhat  angry  discus- 
sion occasioned  by  a  remark  made  by  Mr.  Cobden 
criticising  the  royal  speech  for  not  alluding  to  the 
Corn-Laws.  It  was  a  sort  of  rough  and  tumble 
affair,  in  which  the  extreme  Protectionists  and  the 
extreme  Free  Traders  participated;  the  others 
looking  on.  Mr.  Bright  made  an  emphatic  talk, 
which  Mr.  Stafford  O'Brien  denounced  as  "  bully- 
ing "  the  House.  Sir  Robert  Peel  sat  placid  and 
serene  throughout  the  whole  affair,  and  when  it 
ended  he  quietly  remarked  that  the  performance 
was  all  in  vain,  and  that  he  would  not  be  pro- 
voked at  present  into  a  discussion  of  the  Corn- 
Laws. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 
NEARING    THE    END. 

Anxiety  as  to  the  Financial  Plana  of  the  Government — 
Sir  Robert  Peel  Opens  a  Free  Trade  Budget — Redactions 
of  the  TariflF — He  Discards  the  Export  Duties — Lord  Joou 
Russell  Criticises  the  Budget — Renewal  of  the  Income 
Tar — Mr.  Gladstone  Defends  the  Government  Plans — 
Mr.  Macaulay  Answers  Him — Mr.  Cobden  Moves  for  a 
Committee  on  Agricultural  Distress — Sidney  Herbert — 
"  Whining  for  Protection  " — Mutiny  of  the  Tories — Mr. 
Disraeli  Assails  Peel — The  Insurrection  Suppressed — Sir 
James  Graham  Declares  for  Protection — Sir  Robert  Peel 
Explains  why  it  Should  be  Preserved — Lord  John 
Russell's  Resolutions — The  Annual  Resolutions  of  Mr. 
Villiers — Lord  John  Russell  Supports  them — Sir  James 
Graham  Appeals  for  Time — Sir  Robert  Peel  Lectures  his 
Party — Last  Victory  for  the  Protectionists. 

Thk  coming  statement  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  was 
anxiou.'^ly  awaited  by  Parliament  and  the  country. 
Ttie  Free  Traders  anticipated  it  with  hope,  the 
Protectionists  with  fear.  The  latter  were  some- 
what distrustful  of  their  leader,  because,  notwith- 
standing the  declarations  made  by  the  government 
last  summer,  emphasized  by  the  triumphant 
majority  of  two  hundred  and  four  against  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Villiers,  they  could  see  that  the 
marvelous  success  of  the  reduction  of  tlie  tarill 
in   1842  was  working  on  the  mind  of  Peel,  and 

swaying    him    in    the    direction    of    commercial 

li)T 


198  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

reform.    They  saw  that  his  ambition  was  aroused, 
and  that  in  the  desire  to  link  his  name  forever 
to  some  new  commercial  policy  of  Britain,  he 
might  be  tempted  to  experiment  still  further  in 
the   direction    of    Free    Trade.     However,    they 
mustered  strong  on  Friday  night,  the  14th  of  Feb- 
ruary, to  encourage  their  great  leader  as  he  un- 
folded his  financial  plans.     To  their  amazement 
and  dismay  he  opened  a  Free  Trade  budget.     To 
be  sure  he  had  not  touched  the  Corn-Laws,  but  it 
was  feared  that  he  had  passed  sentence  on  them,  and 
had  only  reprieved  them  for  the  time.     Although 
great  expectations  had  been  formed  of  what  was 
coming,  neither  party  was  prepared  for  the  bold 
and  comprehensive  measure  introduced  by  Peel. 
He  began  by  making  a  large  reduction  in  the  sugar 
duties,  sufficient,  he  said,  to  reduce  the  price  of  it 
to  the  consumer  three  cents  a  pound.     He  next 
proposed  to  strike  the  protective  duty  from  four 
hundred  and  thirty  articles  then  on  the  tariff  list ; 
and  this  he  had  the  coolness  to  tell  his  Protec- 
tionist followers,  "  must  be  a  great  advantage  to 
commerce."    The  suicidal  duties  on  most  of  the 
raw  materials  of  manufacturers  were  swept  away, 
an  example  of  financial  wisdom  well  worthy  the 
study  of  American  statesmen.     Among  the  raw 
materials  made  free,  were  silk,  hemp,  flax,  yarns, 
except   woolen,   furniture    goods,   manures,   oils, 
minerals,  except  copper  ores,  dye  stuffs,  drugs,  etc. 
The  people  who  made  barrel-staves  had  been  pro- 
tected in  that  industry    against  the   "  pauper " 


NEARINO  THE  END.  199 

barrel-staves  of  the  United  States.  Sir  Robert 
Peel  said  that  the  coopers  had  memorialized  him 
to  remove  the  duty  on  barrel-staves.  He  pro- 
posed to  give  them  a  chance  now  ;  and  had  struck 
from  the  tariff  the  duty  on  staves.  The  duty  on 
cotton,  he  said,  fell  heavily  on  coarse  fabrics,  and 
of  course  upon  the  poor ;  he  proposed  to  abolish 
it  altogether.  He  also  struck  off  the  excise  duty 
on  glass. 

This  was  not  all.  Every  rag  of  the  protective 
export  duties  was  discarded,  even  the  venerable 
export  duties  on  coal,  which  had  stood  firm  for 
centuries,  and  which  even  John  Stuart  Mill 
thought  might  wisely  be  retained.  In  the  ignorant 
ages  of  Protective  philosophy,  it  was  considered 
dangerous  to  British  manufactures  if  England 
should  permit  her  coal  to  be  purchased  by  the 
Germans  or  the  French,  lest  they  should  use  it  in 
manufacturing  articles  that  might  compete  in  their 
own  markets,  and  in  others  with  those  of  Great 
Britain.  And  now  a  Protectionist  ministry  pro- 
posed to  abolish  this  time-honored  incubus.  Sir 
Robert  Peel  plunged  fearlessly  into  the  deep  sea 
of  economics,  and  declared  that  in  his  opinion  the 
repealed  taxes,  by  the  stimulus  they  would  give 
to  commerce,  would  so  far  increase  the  general 
prosperity  of  the  country  us  to  counterbalance  the 
continuance  of  the  income  tax.  "  All  classes  of 
the  country,"  he  said,  "  whether  agricultural, 
manufacturing  or  commercial,  and  parties  not 
engaged  in  any  })articular  industry  would  be  either 


200  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

directly  or  indirectly  benefited  by  the  plans  he  now 
proposed."  There  was  great  cheering  when  Sir 
Robert  Peel  sat  down,  but  it  came  not  from  his  own 
party,  but  from  the  Free  Trade  crowd  who  occu- 
pied the  benches  opposite.  The  country  gentle- 
men, the  "  squires,"  who  cheered  themselves  into 
apoplexy  last  June,  now  sat  silent  and  enraged ; 
and  there  were  signs  of  mutiny. 

It  was  arranged  that  the  proposals  of  Sir  Robert 
Peel  should  be  discussed  on  Monday,  and  on  that 
evening  they  were  subjected  to  a  running  fire  of 
criticism  from  several  members,  many  of  whom, 
however,  acknowledged  that  they  could  not  vote 
against  them.  The  chief  debater  on  the  opposi- 
tion side  was  Lord  John  Russell.  He  objected  to 
the  income  tax,  because  it  led  to  vexation  and 
fraud,  and  declared  that  nothing  but  a  great 
emergency  could  justify  its  imposition.  He  then 
declared  himself  opposed  to  all  protective  duties 
of  every  kind.  "It  is  the  business  of  goverment," 
he  said,  "  to  make  laws  for  repressing  crime,  pre- 
serving order,  and  defending  the  state,  but  not 
for  meddling  with  the  right  of  the  citizen  to  dis- 
pose of  his  labor  and  of  the  products  of  his 
industry  in  the  best  market."  He  was  in  favor  of 
a  short  income  tax,  and  a  total  abandonment  of  all 
monopoly. 

Sir  Robert  Peel  remarked  that  it  would  be  un- 
gracious in  him  to  say  much  in  reply  to  those 
who  were  about  to  support  him  in  the  most 
eloquent  of   all   ways,   namely,   by   their  votes. 


NEARING   THE   END.  201 

Lord  John  Russell  surprised  him  by  denouncing 
the  income  tax,  and  then  saying  he  would  vote 
for  it.  Perhaps  the  noble  Lord  felt  that  he  might 
be  on  the  ministerial  benches  himself  a  couple  of 
years  from  now,  and  that  then  £5,000,000  derived 
from  the  income  tax  would  be  a  grateful  sum  to 
deal  with.  Little  did  Sir  Robert  Peel  suppose 
that  this  banter  contained  a  prophesy  that  was 
literally  fulfilled.  In  a  couple  of  years  Lord  John 
Russell  actually  was  on  the  ministerial  benches, 
and  then  he  did  find  that  the  income  tax  was  a  very 
useful  thing  to  have  on  hand.  The  strength  of  Sir 
Robert  Peel's  command  over  both  parties  in  the 
House  may  be  imagined  from  the  fact  that 
although  nearly  everybody  denounced  the  income 
tax,  only  thirty  members  had  the  nerve  to  vote 
against  it;  the  Prime  Minister's  demand  that  it 
should  be  imposed  for  another  term  of  three  years 
was  granted  by  a  majority  of  228  against  30. 

Although  a  great  reduction  in  the  sugar  duties 
was  made  in  the  new  tariff,  the  discrimination  in 
favor  of  the  British  West  Indies  was  still  preserved. 
The  false  reason  given  for  this  was  the  discourage- 
ment of  slavery,  the  true  reason  was  the  "  Protec- 
tion "  of  the  men  who  owned  the  plantations  in 
the  colonies.  Lord  John  Russell  and  Mr.  Milner 
Gibson  each  offered  amendments  to  Peel's  plan, 
in  which  they  declared  for  an  equalization  of  the 
duty  on  foreign  and  colonial  sugar.  They  were 
easily  defeated  although  they  had  the  best  of  the 
debate.     Lord  John  Russell  and  Mr.  Labouchere 


202  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

exposed  the  inconsistency  of  the  anti-slavery 
pretext,  because  the  government  was  very  careful 
not  to  apply  it  to  other  things.  Mr.  Gladstone 
answered  them,  and  although  he  was  now  out  of 
office,  he  defended  the  government  plan  with  his 
usual  eloquence.  He  reminded  the  House  of  the 
great  sacrifices  it  had  made  to  obtain  the  extinc- 
tion of  slavery,  and  pointed  out  the  inconsistency 
of  placing  cruisers  on  the  coast  of  Africa  to  pre- 
vent the  exportation  of '  negroes  to  Cuba  and 
Brazil,  and  at  the  same  time  giving  by  our  fiscal 
policy  such  encouragement  to  the  planters  of 
those  countries  to  produce  a  greater  quantity  of 
sugar  as  would  induce  them  to  obtain  slaves  at 
all  hazards.  Mr.  Macaulay  replied  to  Gladstone, 
and  said  he  would  not  have  two  standards  of  right 
and  wrong,  nor  strain  at  a  gnat  and  swallow  a 
camel.  "  This,"  he  said,  "  is  what  you  are  doing." 
He  then  showed  that  Sir  Robert  Peel  at  the  very 
moment  in  which  he  debarred  the  country  from 
the  importation  of  Brazilian  sugar,  because  it  was 
slave  grown,  took  off  all  the  duty  on  American 
cotton  which  was  slave  grown  also.  Sir  Robert 
Peel  defended  the  inconsistency  of  the  government, 
and  the  opposition  was  put  to  sleep  by  a  majority 
of  ninety-four  against  Lord  John  Russell's 
amendment. 

On  the  10th  of  March,  Mr.  Cobden  brought  on 
his  motion  for  a  select  committee  to  inquire  into 
the  causes  of  agricultural  distress.  He  contended 
that  the  Corn-Laws  were  an  injury  instead  of  a 


NEARING  THE   END.  203 

benefit  to  the  farmers  and  farm  laborers,  and  this 
he  would  be  prepared  to  show  if  they  would  grant 
him  the  committee.  On  the  part  of  the  govern- 
ment Mr.  Sidney  Herbert,  a  young  patrician  of 
great  fortune  and  family,  was  chosen  to  reply  to 
Cobden.  He  was  of  the  lineage  of  Sir  Philip 
Sidney,  and  brother  of  the  Earl  of  Pembroke. 
He  was  a  high  Tory,  and  was  credited  with  more 
talent  than  usually  belonged  to  men  of  his  rank 
and  fortune.  He  held  office  in  Peel's  goremment 
as  Secretary  of  the  Admiralty.  There  was  nothing 
remarkable  about  his  speech  except  that  it  con- 
tained an  honest  and  unlucky  expression  which 
greatly  ofifended  his  party.  After  stating  posi- 
tively that  Mr.  Cobden's  motion  would  be  met  on 
the  part  of  the  government  by  a  decided  negative, 
he  remarked  that  the  agriculturists  were  a  body  of 
men  with  very  susceptible  nerves,  easily  excited 
to  alarm.  By  granting  the  committee  a  notion 
would  go  abroad  that  the  government  had  an  in- 
tention to  alter  the  Corn- Laws.  It  was  somewhat 
distasteful  to  him  as  a  member  of  the  agricultural 
body  to  be  always  coming  to  Parliament ''  whining 
for  Prolection.^^ 

That  last  phrase  probably  fell  from  him  in  a 
peevish  moment  when  his  tongue  was  not  well 
enough  guarded.  It  gave  great  offense,  and  a 
good  deal  of  alarm.  Nothing  that  had  fallen 
from  Cobden  had  such  a  sting  in  it,  for  this  was 
the  language  of  contempt.  The  imperious  demand 
of  the  landed  aristocracy  for  protection  to  agri- 


204  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

culture,  was  described  in  a  patrician  sneer  as 
"whining;  "  and  this,  too,  in  a  speech  answering 
Cobden.  It  suggested  more  than  it  said ;  it  indi- 
cated that  the  Tory  government  itself  had  become 
tired  of  wet-nursing  and  dry-nursing  all  the 
wheezy  "  interests  "  that  claimed  legislative  sup- 
port. Had  the  insult  come  from  any  of  the  Free 
Trade  party  it  might  have  been  endured ;  but  to 
come  from  one  of  themselves,  a  wealthy  landlord, 
an  aristocrat,  and  a  Tory,  was  a  humiliation  hard 
to  bear,  especially  as  Mr.  Sidney  Herbert  had 
lately,  at  a  public  meeting,  declared  himself  a 
firm  adherent  of  the  Protective  System,  and  had 
fiercely  assailed  the  League.  The  phrase  "  whin- 
ing for  Protection,"  immediately  passed  into  the 
colloquial  slang  of  politics. 

The  Tory  mutiny  broke  out  in  the  early  days  of 
March,  but  so  strong  was  Peel,  first,  in  the  success 
of  his  ministerial  policy,  secondly,  in  the  weak- 
ness and  division  of  the  Whigs,  and  thirdly,  in 
the  fears  of  his  own  party  that  if  they  lost  him 
somebody  worse  for  them  would  take  his  place, 
that  the  insurrection  was  easily  suppressed.  The 
mutiny  appeared  in  the  shape  of  a  motion  of  Mr. 
Miles  to  the  effect  "  that  in  the  application  of  sur- 
plus revenue  towards  relieving  the  burdens  of  the 
country,  by  reduction  of  taxation,  due  regard 
should  be  had  to  the  necessity  of  affording  relief 
to  the  agricultural  interest."  In  his  remarks  upon 
that  resolution  Mr.  Miles  distinctly  told  his  chief 
that  if  the  Tories  had  known  what  was  coming 


NEARINO  THE  END.  205 

they  would  have  beaten  him  in  1842.  The  loud 
cheering  from  the  Protectionists  which  greeted  this 
posthumous  threat,  showed  Peel  that  although  by 
the  duress  of  the  situation  they  were  compelled 
to  give  him  their  votes,  their  sympathies  were 
with  the  mutineers,  and  not  with  the  commanding 
officer.  The  resolution  was  seconded  by  the  Earl 
of  March,  son  and  heir  of  the  Duke  of  Richmond, 
and  present  possessor  of  that  title.  In  supporting 
it,  Mr,  Disraeli  made  a  showy  and  somewhat 
theatrical  display.  His  speech  was  received  with 
uproarious  cheering  by  the  Tories,  and  it  really 
deserved  all  the  applause.  There  were  many 
smart  things  in  it,  although  they  all  smelt  of  the 
lamp,  and  bore  evidence  of  careful  study  and 
preparation.  The  personal  allusions  to  Peel  were 
steeped  in  vitriol.  That  statesman  had  always 
underrated  Mr.  Disraeli,  and  still  underrated  him. 
He  maintained  his  air  of  superiority  all  through, 
but  the  poisoned  sarcasms  wounded  him  like  a 
shower  of  needles.  In  this  phillipic  occurs  the 
sentence  that  afterwards  became  famous,  and  a 
Tory  rallying  cry ;  the  sentence  in  which  Mr. 
Disraeli  denounced  the  administration  as  "  an 
organized  hypocrisy."  Sir  Robert  Peel  kept  his 
temper,  and  in  reply  contrasted  Mr.  Disraeli's 
former  flatteries  with  his  present  vituperation. 
With  an  air  of  disdain  he  said  that  he  held  his 
panegyrics  and  attacks  in  the  same  estimation. 
The  rebellion  was  crushed  by  a  majority  of  213 
to  78. 


206  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

In  this  very  lively  debate  the  government  still 
proclaimed  its  adherence  to  the  Protective  System. 
Sir  James  Graham,  Secretary  of  State,  while 
opposing  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Miles,  declared 
that  the  principle  of  Protection  should  be  and 
ought  to  be  preserved  in  the  economic  legislation 
of  the  country,  and  Lord  John  Russell  followed 
him  with  an  emphatic  declaration  on  the  other 
side.  He  advised  the  protected  classes  to  rely 
henceforth  upon  their  energy,  their  industry,  and 
their  capital,  as  the  true  sources  of  prosperity, 
and  not  upon  the  broken  reed  of  "legislative 
protection."  Sir  Robert  Peel  made  a  very  careful 
speech.  He  thought  extreme  Protection  wrong, 
and  defended  moderate  Protection  as  "  necessary, 
not  on  principles  of  commercial  policy,  but  as 
essential  to  a  state  of  things  where  great  interests 
had  grown  up,  and  whose  injury  would  be  that  of 
the  community  at  large." 

The  student  of  American  politics  may  wisely 
study  this  apology  of  Sir  Robert  Peel.  He  will 
hear  it  often  in  the  "  impending  conflict  "  in  the 
United  States  between  Protection  and  Free  Trade. 
Sir  Robert  Peel  himself  stigmatised  his  own 
reasoning  as  unsound  on  "  principles  of  commer- 
cial policy,"  but  "  great  interests  had  grown  up  " 
under  the  stimulus  of  "  Protection,"  and  if  the 
artificir  1  prop  which  supported  those  great  interests 
should  be  removed,  they  would  fall  to  the  ground ; 
and  the  people  who  were  living  on  them  would 
receive  injury.     That  the  withdrawal  of  Protec- 


NEARING   THE  END.  207 

tion  would  be  an  injury  to  the  protected  classes 
was  true,  but  that  it  would  be  an  injury  to  the 
community  at  large  was  false.  The  community 
at  large,  being  taxed  for  the  benefit  of  a  class,  he 
pretended  that  the  removal  of  the  tax  would  be 
an  injury,  not  only  to  those  who  received  it,  but 
to  those  who  paid  it.  This  absurdity  is  flippantly 
maintained  by  the  American  Protectionists  even 
now. 

This  position  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  is  a  lesson  and 
a  warning  to  us.  It  shows  that  no  matter  under 
what  circumstances  of  pretended  urgency  "  Pro- 
tection "  may  be  conceded,  the  protected  class  is 
never  ready  to  surrender  it.  The  rack-renting  Mor- 
rill tariff  of  1861 ,  which  Mr.  Morrill  himself  declared 
at  that  time  could  only  be  defended  as  a  "  war 
measure  "  by  the  urgency  of  our  situation,  is  now, 
twenty  years  after  the  war,  impudent  and  rapa- 
cious. Mr.  Morrill  will  not  permit  a  hair  of  its 
head  to  be  injured.  He  is  willing  to  take  it  out 
of  politics,  and  refer  it  to  a  "  commission  "  of  its 
friends  with  instructions  to  report  in  the  language 
of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  that  its  preservation  has  be- 
come "  essential  to  a  state  of  things  where  great 
interests  have  grown  up,  whose  injury  would  be 
that  of  the  community  at  large." 

Late  in  May  Lord  John  Russell's  plan  was 
given  to  the  country.  It  consisted  of  nine  reso- 
lutions which  the  Whig  leader  presented  to  Par- 
liament in  a  speech  which  was  easily  and  success- 
fully answered  by  Peel.     These  resolutions  were 


208  HISTORY     OF    FREE    TRADE. 

intended  to  constitute  a  new  platform  for  the 
"Whigs.  Had  they  been  proclaimed  before  the 
opening  of  Parliament  they  would  have  been  re- 
garded as  so  liberal  and  far  advanced  that  they 
might  have  embarrassed  both  the  Tories  and  the 
League ;  but  coming  after  Peel's  budget,  they 
were  of  no  more  interest  than  nine  old  newpapers. 
Like  some  other  political  parties  that  might  be 
mentioned,  the  Whigs  came  limping  along  behind 
their  enemies.  Of  the  nine  resolutions  this  his- 
tory is  only  concerned  with  two.  The  second 
resolution  was,  "  That  those  laws  which  impose 
duties  usually  called  protective  tend  to  impair  the 
efficiency  of  labor,  to  restrict  the  free  interchange 
of  commodities,  and  so  impose  upon  the  people 
unnecessary  taxation." 

It  took  the  League  six  long  years  to  pound 
those  principles  into  Lord  John  Russell.  He  had 
adopted  them  at  last,  and  it  must  be  acknowledged 
that  in  making  his  confession  to  the  House  of 
Commons  he  had  managed  to  condense  a  vast 
amount  of  economic  truth  into  a  very  few  sen- 
tences. The  wonderful  fact  remains  that  he  was 
not  yet  ready  to  apply  those  principles  to  corn. 
The  third  resolution  was,  "  That  the  present  Corn- 
Law  tends  to  check  improvements  in  agriculture, 
produces  uncertainty  in  all  farming  speculations, 
and  holds  out  to  the  owners  and  occupiers  of  land 
prospects  of  special  advantage  which  it  fails  to 
secure." 

And  yet  he  was  not  ready  to  vote  for  a  repeal  of 


NEARING  THE   END.  209 

that  law.  He  merely  wanted  to  change  the 
*'  sliding  scale  "  for  a  fixed  duty.  He  confessed, 
however,  that  after  all  the  discussion  which  had 
tnken  place,  he  could  not  reasonably  and  fairly 
propose  the  eight  shillings  fixed  duty  which  he 
had  offered  in  1841.  He  thought  that  a  duty  of 
four,  five,  or  six  shillings  a  quarter  would  be  about 
right.  The  League  had  made  him  a  Free  Trader 
as  to  everything  but  corn  ;  and  as  to  that,  it  had 
crowded  him  back  from  eight  shillings  a  quarter, 
to  six,  or  five,  or  even  four.  Lord  John  Russell 
had  the  Whigs  and  Free  Traders  with  him  on  the 
division,  but  was  easily  beaten  by  a  majority  of 
seventy-eight. 

In  June  came  on  again  the  annual  motion  of 
Mr.  Villiers  for  a  total  repeal  of  the  Corn-Laws. 
It  was  in  the  form  of  three  resolutions : 

1.  That  the  Corn-Law  restricts  the  supply  of 
food,  and  prevents  the  free  exchange  of  the  pro- 
ducts of  labor. 

2.  That  it  is,  therefore,  prejudicial  to  the  wel- 
fare of  the  country,  especially  to  that  of  the 
working  classes,  and  has  proved  delusive  to  those 
for  whose  benefit  the  law  was  designed. 

3.  That  it  is  expedient  that  all  restrictions  on 
the  importation  of  corn  should  be  now  abolished. 

Tlie  debate  on  the  resolutions  revealed  the  new 
position  taken  by  Lord  John  Russell.  He  gave 
his  unqualified  support  to  the  first  and  second 
resolutions,  but  was  not  ready  to  vote  for  the 
third.     The  Whig  leaders  were  still  beguiled  by  a 


210  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

fantastic  will-o'-the-wisp,  seducing  them  into  the 
slough  of  compromise.  They  cherished  the 
delusion  that  in  the  break  up  of  parties  which 
was  coming,  many  fragments  might  be  cemented 
to  the  Whigs  by  a  concession  to  Protection  of  a 
moderate  duty  upon  grain,  and  by  a  concession  to 
Free  Trade  of  a  tariff  for  revenue  only  as  to  all 
other  things.  But  the  time  for  compromise  had 
passed,  and  principles  now  stood  arrayed  against 
each  other  in  "irrepressible  conflict."  Lord  John 
Russell  echoed  Villiers  and  Cobden.  He  charged 
that  the  legislators  maintained  the  existing  law, 
because  it  added  to  their  own  incomes;  and  he 
declared  that  they  had  failed  in  their  attempts  to 
prove  that  it  was  beneficial  to  the  rest  of  the 
community. 

The  debate  also  disclosed  the  change  that  haa 
come  over  Sir  James  Graham  in  three  months. 
He  no  longer  contended  for  Protection  as  a  prin- 
ciple, but  merely  for  cautious  and  prudent  legisla- 
tion in  dealing  with  it.  He  seemed  to  plead  that 
the  doomed  culprit  might  have  a  long  time  to 
prepare  for  death.  He  admitied  that  by  prudent 
measures  they  might  bring  the  Corn-Laws  nearer 
to  the  sound  principles  of  commerce ;  but  he 
hoped  that  no  sudden  step  would  be  taken.  He 
very  much  feared  a  "  shock  "  to  the  agricultural 
interest,  because  it  would  convulse  all  other 
branches  of  industry.  He  feared  that  the  free 
importation  of  corn  would  throw  land  out  of  culti- 
vation, inflicting  great  injury  on  parts  of  England, 


NEARING  THE  END.  211 

and  on  the  whole  of  Ireland.  Still,  if  he  thought 
that  free  importation  was  the  only  way  in  which 
to  supply  sufl&cient  food  to  an  increasing  popula- 
tion, he  would  not  oppose  it  any  longer.  Unfor- 
tunately, Sir  James  Graham  was  in  the  situation 
of  Mr.  Gladstone;  he  too  had  written  a  book,  and 
its  doctrines  were  continually  tripping  him  up. 
The  principles  laid  down  by  him  in  his  work  on 
"  Corn  and  Currency  "  were  very  inconvenient  to 
him  now,  and  his  opponents  made  the  most  of  his 
embarrassment.  He  never  flinched,  however,  but 
took  his  punishment  in  a  very  manly  way. 
Wherever  he  differed  from  his  book  he  cour- 
ageously acknowledged  that  his  opinions  had 
undergone  a  change.  Mr.  Bright  answered  Sir 
James  Graham.  He  accused  him  of  dealing  in 
fallacies,  and  referred  to  the  Free  Trade  Bazaar  at 
Covent  Garden  Theatre  as  evidence  that  the  Free 
Trade  agitation  outside  Parliament  was  vigorous 
and  increasing. 

There  were  several  speeches  made  on  both  sides. 
Lord  Ebrington,  a  Whig  nobleman  of  some  im- 
portance, declared  that  he  should  vote  for  the  reso- 
lutions. He  had  formerly  opposed  them  because 
he  hopel  that  a  fixed  duty  would  have  formed  a 
compromise  between  the  two  great  interests  of  the 
country.  He  now  despaired  of  any  such  com- 
promise, and  would  give  his  hearty  support  to 
the  resolutions.  Mr.  Cobden  made  a  vigorous 
attack  upon  the  present  system.  He  declared 
that  the  condition  of  the  laboring  classes  was  a 


212  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

disgrace  to  the  country,  and  he  maintained  that 
it  was  an  act  of  injustice  to  tax  the  food  of  the 
people.  This  question,  he  said,  had  never  been 
fairly  met  with  argument  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, and  he  ventured  to  predict  that  it  never 
would  be  fairly  met. 

The  most  remarkable  thing  about  tuis  debate 
was  the  towering  air  of  superiority  with  which  Sir 
Robert  Peel  lectured  the  pack  behind  him.  With 
lordly  patronage  he  told  them  that  although  he 
was  about  to  lead  them  to  victory  once  more  their 
arguments  were  unsound.  He  distinctly  stated 
that  although  he  must  vote  against  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Villiers,  he  could  not  agree  in  all  the  argu- 
ments adduced  against  it.  He  formally  repudiated 
and  laid  aside  t.ie  mistake  of  the  Protectionists, 
that  dear  commodities  make  high  wages,  and 
although  some  of  his  own  followers  had  pro- 
claimed the  doctrine  in  that  very  debate,  he  told 
them  it  was  not  true.  The  Protectionists  bore  this 
lecture  with  such  patience  as  they  could,  but 
when  their  leader  told  thenx  that  he  opposed  the 
motion,  not  because  it  was  not  right,  but  because 
he  desired  to  make  "  a  gradual  approach  to  sound 
principles  with  a  cautious  attention  to  the 
interests  which  had  grown  up  under  a  different 
system,"  they  could  scarce  conceal  their  anger. 
They  very  well  understood  that  he  meant  by 
"  sound  principles  "  the  doctrines  of  Free  Trade. 
To  be  told,  not  only  that  their  arguments  were 
bad,  but  also  that  their  principles  were  not  sound. 


NEAKING  THE  END.  213 

was  more  than  they  could  bear.  The  division 
was  taken  mechanically,  and  the  speaker  an- 
nounced that  the  Noes  had  it  by  254  to  122,  a 
little  more  than  two  to  one.  This  was  the  last 
victory  for  the  Protectionists  in  England.  Par- 
liament adjourned  in  August.  When  it  met 
again  in  January,  the  Tory  party  had  been  dis- 
integrated and  broken  to  pieces  by  the  Lejigue ; 
the  Protectionists  were  disorganized  and  routed  so 
completely  that  they  were  never  afterwards  known 
as  a  party  in  the  politics  of  Great  Britain. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
AT   LAST,  FAMINE. 

The  Bad  Harvest  of  1845 — The  Potato  Disease — Anxiety  of 
Sir  Kobert  Peel — Correspondence  "With  Sir  James  Gra- 
ham— Sends  a  Scientific  Commission  to  Ireland — Cabi- 
net Councils — Discord  Therein — Lord  John  Russell's 
Letter  to  the  Electors  of  London — Ministerial  Crisis — 
Resignation  of  the  Ministry — Lord  John  Russell  Fails 
to  Form  a  Government — Return  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  to 
Power — Activity  of  the  League — Great  Public  Meet- 
ings— Reconstruction  of  the  Cabinet. 

And  now  the  time  was  close  at  hand  when  that 
boasted  Protective  System  which  was  to  make 
Britain  "  independent  of  foreign  countries  "  for  its 
food  supply  was  to  be  subjected  to  a  test  it  could 
not  stand.  In  the  summer  of  1845  Mr.  Cobden 
had  ridiculed  that  precarious  commercial  system 
which  was  at  the  mercy  of  a  shower  of  rain. 
*'  Three  weeks  rainy  weather,"  he  said,  "  will 
prove  the  danger  of  leaving  the  industrial  scheme 
of  such  a  country  as  England  to  stand  or  fall  on 
the  cast  of  a  die."  He  had  scarcely  ceased  to 
speak  wlien  the  rainy  weather  came,  and  it  lasted 
through  the  harvest  time.  The  wheat  crop  was 
short,  and  its  quality  was  poor.  It  was  not  so 
short,  however,  as  to  create  any  alarm,  or  affect 
the   politics  of  the  country.     No  uneasiness  was 

S14 


FAMINE.  215 

felt  until  the  middle  of  August,  when  it  was 
rumored  that  the  potato  crop  had  been  smitten 
with  a  strange  disease,  and  that  the  potatoes  in 
the  south  of  England  were  rotting  in  the  ground. 
While  this  occasioned  some  anxiety  to  the  gov- 
ernment, and  was  the  cause  of  some  correspond- 
ence between  Sir  Robert  Peel  and  Sir  James 
Graham,  it  was  not  until  the  middle  of  Septem- 
ber that  the  Ministers  became  alarmed ;  for  al- 
though the  reports  were  contradictory,  as  in  all 
such  cases,  yet  enough  was  known  to  satisfy  Sir 
Robert  Peel  that  the  rot  was  extensive  and  even 
general  throughout  England;  and  there  was  a 
horrid  whisper  creeping  about  that  the  crop  had 
also  been  smitten  in  Ireland.  This  was  more 
alarming  still,  for  the  potato  constituted  the  prin- 
cipal food  of  the  Irish  peasantry.  In  a  letter 
written  by  Sir  James  Graham  to  Sir  Robert  Peel, 
from  Netherby,in  the  north,  and  dated  September 
the  19th,  1845,  he  says,  "  I  hope  there  may  be 
some  exaggeration  in  this  report  of  the  failure  of 
the  potato  crop  in  Ireland  ;  but  there  is  no  doubt 
that  to  aorae  extent  the  disease  has  made  its 
appearance  in  that  country.  We  had  again  a 
great  deal  of  rain  yesterday ;  and  the  weather  is 
broken  and  no  longer  favorable." 

In  October  the  reports  grew  worse,  and  men  all 
over  England  were  cursing  between  their  teeth 
that  governmental  system  which  had  made  the 
Irish  people  dependent  on  a  wretched  root  for 
food.     So  far  from  being  "  independent  of  foreign 


216  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

countries,"  the  people  of  the  British  Islands  saw 
themselves  in  the  autumn  of  1845  almost  at  the 
mercy  of  other  nations  for  their  coming  winter's 
bread.  Sir  Robert  Peel  vibrated  between  hope 
and  despair.  In  his  own  memoirs  he  says,  "  Even 
so  late  as  the  6th  of  October  the  accounts  from 
Ireland  were  not  decidedly  unfavorable,  and  on 
that  day  Sir  James  Graham,  writing  from  Neth- 
erby,  observes,  'the  accounts  of  the  potato  crop  in 
Ireland  are  more  favorable  than  I  had  ventured  to 
€xpect.  The  recent  terrible  rains  will  still  do  no 
harm.  I  am  afraid  that  the  price  of  food  gener- 
ally will  be  very  high.'  Soon  after  the  6th  of 
October  the  reports  from  Ireland  became  very 
unsatisfactory."  On  the  13th  of  October,  Sir 
Robert  Peel  addressed  a  letter  to  Sir  James  Gra- 
ham, in  which  he  says,  "The  accounts  of  the 
potato  crop  in  Ireland  are  becoming  very  alarm- 
ing." The  letter  concludes  with  the  following 
important  paragraph,  "  I  have  no  confidence  in 
such  remedies  as  the  prohibition  of  exjjorts,  or 
the  stoppage  of  the  distilleries.  The  removal  of 
impediments  to  imports  is  the  only  effectual  rem- 
edy." This  proves  that  Sir  Robert  Peel  had  made 
up  his  mind  as  early  as  the  13th  of  October.  But 
he  was  the  leader  of  a  stubborn  and  stupid  party, 
nearly  all  opposed  to  him ;  and  he  was  at  the  head 
of  a  Cabinet,  every  member  of  which  was  a  Pro- 
tectionist, from  education,  from  prejudice,  and 
from  self-interest.  He  seems  to  have  had  but  one 
sympathizing  friend  in  his  own  Cabinet ;  but  one 


FAMINE.  217 

man  with  whom  he  could  hold  confidential  cornsel 
amid  the  awful  responsibilities  and  dangers  which 
were  rapidly  closing  around  him.  That  waf?  Sir 
James  Graham,  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Home 
Department.  Between  Sir  James  Graham  and 
his  chief  there  appears  to  have  been  a  kindred 
feeling  of  responsibility,  and  a  mutual  willingness 
to  do  whatever  ought  to  be  done,  regardless  of 
consequences  merely  personal  to  themselves. 

In  the  middle  of  October  Sir  Robert  Peel  sent  a 
commission  of  scientific  men  to  Ireland  with 
instructions  to  investigate  and  report  upon  the 
potato  disease,  so  that  he  might  act  upon  correct 
information.  This  must  have  been  rather  to 
influence  and  satisfy  his  colleagues  than  for  liis 
own  information.  He  was  already  satisfied,  and 
had  determined  what  to  do.  On  the  loth  of  Octo- 
ber he  wrote  to  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland 
as  follows,  "  The  accounts  from  Ireland  of  the 
potato  crop,  confirmed  as  they  are  by  your  high 
authority,  are  very  alarming.  We  must  consider 
whether  it  is  possible  by  legislation,  or  by  the 
exercise  of  prerogative,  to  apply  a  remedy  to  the 
great  evil  with  which  we  are  threatened.  The 
application  of  such  remedy  involves  considera- 
tions of  the  utmost  magnitude.  Tiie  remed}'  is 
the  removal  of  all  impedinieuts  to  the  import  of « 
all  kinds  of  human  food — that  is,  the  total  and 
absolute  repeal  for  ever  of  all  duties  on  all  arti- 
cles of  subsistence."  On  the  •27th  of  October,  in  a 
letter  to  Sir  James  Graham,  Sir  Robert  Peel,  said, 


218  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

"The  Anti-Corn-Law  pressure  is  about  to  com- 
mence, and  it  will  be  the  most  formidable  move- 
ment of  modem  times.  Everything  depends 
upon  the  skill,  promptitude,  and  decision  with 
which  it  is  met." 

Sir  Robert  Peel  was  right.  The  League  had 
now  become  almost  irresistible.  A  large  portion 
of  the  press  which  had  long  held  aloof  from  it 
gave  in  their  adhesion,  not  only  to  its  doctrines, 
but  to  its  plans.  It  held  great  meetings  and  made 
many  converts.  It  caused  petitions  to  be  circu- 
lated throughout  the  country  demanding  the 
immediate  repeal  of  the  Corn-Laws.  These  were 
signed  by  thousands.  Mr.  O'Connell,  who  had 
long  been  a  member  of  the  League,  sent  fearful 
accounts  from  Ireland,  and  demanded  a  cessation 
of  party  conflict  in  the  presence  of  the  calamity 
that  was  impending  over  the  country.  He  called 
upon  the  government  to  open  the  ports  to  the 
admission  of  foreign  grain.  Sir  Robert  Peel  felt 
the  fearful  weight  of  his  responsibility,  and  there 
were  frequent  meetings  of  the  Cabinet,  but  the 
people  knew  nothing  of  its  discussions  except 
that  they  were  not  harmonious. 

The  first  Cabinet  Council  to  consider  the  subject 
was  held  on  the  31st  of  October.  It  met  again 
the  next  day,  and  then  Sir  Robert  Peel  laid  before 
it  a  memorandum  of  the  situation,  and  of  the 
remedies  that  he  thought  ought  to  be  adopted. 
After  explaining  why  the  Cabinet  had  been  called 
together,  and  laying  before  it  all  the  information 


FAMINE.  219 

he  had  received  concerning  the  condition  of  the 
country,  he  proposed,  first,  that  the  ports  should 
be  opened  to  the  admission  of  foreign  grain  by  an 
order  in  council,  trusting  that  Parliament  would 
pass  an  act  of  indemnity  excusing  the  Ministers 
for  this  unconstitutional  suspending  of  a  law; 
secondly,  to  call  Parliament  together  not  later 
than  the  27th  of  November,  and  leave  the  whole 
matter  to  its  decision.  He  gave  the  arguments  for 
and  against  both  plans,  and  frankly  declared  his 
opinion  that  if  the  ports  were  once  opened,  even 
for  temporary  relief,  they  could  never  be  closed 
again.  The  Cabinet  separated  without  coming  to 
any  opinion,  and  agreed  to  meet  again  on  the  6th 
of  November,  to  determine  what  policy  should  be 
adopted 

On  the  6th  of  November  the  Cabinet  met  again, 
but  not  even  the  reasoning  of  Peel  could  move  it 
from  a  stolid,  selfish  conservatism.  The  pro- 
posals of  the  Prime  Minister  were  supported  by 
only  three  members — the  Earl  of  Aberdeen,  Sir 
Jjmes  Graham,  and  Mr.  Sidney  Herbert.  "  The 
oilier  members  of  the  Cabinet,"  remarks  Peel, 
'"  some  on  the  ground  of  objection  to  the  principle 
of  the  measures  recommended,  others  upon  the 
ground  that  there  was  not  sufficient  evidence  of 
the  necessity  for  them,  withheld  their  sanction." 
This,  he  says,  would  have  justified  him  then  in 
relinquishing  office,  but  fearing  that  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  government  would  excite  the  ])ublic 
mind,   he    determined    to    retain   office    for    the 


220  HISTORY    OF   FREE   TRADE. 

present,  and  give  the  Cabinet  until  the  last  of  the 
month  to  consider  the  whole  question.  "  In  de- 
termining to  retain  office  for  the  present,"  he  said, 
"  I  determined  also,  not  to  recede  from  the  posi- 
tion I  had  taken,  and  ultimately  to  resign  office  if 
I  should  find  on  the  re-assembling  of  the  Cabinet 
that  the  opinions  I  had  expressed  did  not  meet 
with  general  concurrence. 

The  discord  in  the  Cabinet  looked  like  an 
opportunity  for  the  Whigs,  and  they  thought  to 
make  party  capital  out  of  it.  This  does  not  mean 
that  they  did  not  also  think  that  it  gave  them  an 
opportunity  to  be  of  real  service  to  the  country. 
Lord  John  Russell  was  in  Edinburgh  quietly 
watching  the  progress  of  events.  He  saw  that 
there  was  a  division  in  the  Cabinet.  How  wide  it 
was  he  did  not  know,  but  he  thought  that  it  was 
probably  wide  enough  to  let  him  pass  through  it, 
and  return  once  more  to  power.  All  through 
November  the  political  gloom  grew  deeper,  and  at 
last  he  thought  that  his  time  had  come.  He  was 
member  for  the  city  of  London,  and  on  the  22d  of 
November  he  wrote  from  Edinburgh  a  letter  to 
his  constituents  on  the  condition  of  the  country. 
It  was  written  somewhat  in  a  party  spirit,  and 
reflected  severely  upon  the  Ministry,  and  espec- 
ially upon  Peel ;  but  the  people  did  not  notice 
that;  all  they  noticed  was  the  more  important 
fact  that  he  had  gone  bodily  over  to  the  League, 
and  declared  himself  in  favor  of  Free  Trade.  He 
confessed  that  he  had  been  converted  from  the 


FAMINE.  221 

errors  of  a  lifetime.  "  I  used  to  be  of  the  opin- 
ion," he  said,  "  that  corn  was  an  exception  to  the 
general  rules  of  poUtical  economy."  Observation 
and  experience  had  at  last  convinced  him  of  the 
expensive  folly  of  the  whole 'Protective  System, 
lie  said,  "  Let  us,  then,  unite  to  put  an  end  to  a 
system  which  has  proved  to  be  the  blight  of  com- 
merce, the  bane  of  agriculture,  the  source  of 
bitter  divisions  among  classes,  the  cause  of  pen- 
ury, fever,  mortality,  and  crime  among  the  people." 
This  letter  meant  that  the  Whigs  had  got  off 
the  fence;  and  presently  they  were  seen  tumbling 
over  one  another  in  their  liaste  to  join  the  League. 
It  precipitated  the  crisis,  and  broke  up  the  Minis- 
try. As  soon  as  it  appeared  Sir  Robert  Peel 
called  the  Cabinet  together.  He  told  his  Ministt^rs 
that  he  could  not  any  longer  assume  the  responsi- 
bility of  continuing  the  Corn- Laws;  he  proposed 
to  open  the  ports  i)y  an  order  in  council,  and 
declared  himself  in  favor  of  Free  Trade.  On  the 
2oth  of  November  the  council  met,  and  on  the 
2(Hh  Sir  Robert  Peel  laid  before  it  a  memorandum 
in  which  he  said,  "  I  am  prepared  for  one  to  take 
the  responsibility  of  suspending  the  law  by  an 
order  in  council,  or  of  calling  Parliament  at  a 
very  early  })eriod,  and  advising  in  the  speech 
from  the  throne,  the  susj)ension  of  the  law."  On 
the  21)th  of  November  he  forwarded  to  each 
member  of  tlie  Cabinet  another  memorandum 
containing  the  whole  ar^anncnt  on  the  case,  but 
they    were  not  convinced.       In  answer   to  it  the 


222  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE, 

Duke  of  Wellington  said,  "  I  am  one  of  those  who 
think  the  continuance  of  the  Corn- Laws  essential 
to  the  agriculture  of  the  country  in  its  existing 
state,  and  particularly  to  that  of  Ireland,  and  a 
benefit  to  the  whole  community."  He  thought, 
however,  that  a  good  government  for  the  country 
was  of  more  consequence  than  the  Corn-Laws. 
He  thought  that  the  government  was  safer  in  the 
hands  of  Peel  than  it  would  be  elsewhere,  and 
agreed  to  stand  by  him  in  any  policy  that  he 
might  think  proper  to  adopt.  He  said,  "  In  respect 
to  my  own  course,  my  only  object  in  public  life  is 
to  support  Sir  Robert  Peel's  administration  of  the 
government." 

Mr.  Goulburn,  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  in 
his  answer  to  Peel's  memorandum,  said,  "  I  wish 
to  consider  protection  to  agriculture  precisely  as  I 
would  protection  to  manufactures ;  for  agriculture, 
after  all,  is  a  manufacture,  of  which  the  raw  ma- 
terial is  earth,  and  the  manufactured  article  is 
corn."  As  the  American  Protectionist  to-day 
makes  the  public  debt  an  excuse  for  the  imposi- 
tion of  protective  taxes,  so  did  Mr.  Goulburn 
then.  He  said,  "  From  the  immense  amount  of 
our  debt,  and  the  charge  imposed  on  every  inter- 
est in  the  country  in  respect  to  it,  every  manufac- 
turer in  this  country  has  in  justice  a  claim  to  be 
protected  as  regards  the  supply  of  the  home  con- 
sumer against  the  competition  of  a  foreigner,  who, 
not  having  the  same  charges  upon  him,  is,  or 
ought  to  be  able  to  supply  articles  at  a  cheaper 


FAMINE.  223 

rate."  Here  Mr.  Goulburn  concealed  the  fact,  or 
else  he  did  not  know  it,  that  this  protection  given 
to  the  manufacturer  to  help  him  bear  the  burden 
of  the  public  debt,  was  given  at  the  expense  of 
other  classes  of  the  people,  who,  in  addition  to 
this  protective  tax,  were  also  compelled  to  bear  their 
share  of  the  public  debt.  This  concession  to  the 
manufacturers,  however,  was  only  a  pretext  for 
demanding  a  larger  protection  for  the  agricultur- 
ists. He  goes  on  to  say,  "On  this  ground  you 
give  linen,  cotton,  and  woolen  manufacturers  a 
protection  of  from  10  to  20  per  cent.,  and  to  this 
extent  on  the  same  ground  I  see  no  reason  why 
corn  should  not  be  protected."  He  then  proceeds 
to  argue  that  for  peculiar  reasons  corn  should 
have  "an  extra  protection." 

Lord  WharnclifFe,  in  his  answer  to  the  mem- 
orandum, said  that  in  his  opinion  no  case  was 
made  out  as  yet  that  would  justify  the  govern- 
ment in  taking  the  action  proposed  by  Sir  Robert 
Peel.  He  thought  that  the  government  ''could 
not  consistently  propose  such  measures  to  Parlia- 
ment as  in  their  conscience  they  must  feel  to  be, 
not  only  an  abandonment  of  the  present  Corn- 
Law,  but  of  the  principle  of  Protection."  He 
argued  strongly  against  a  Free  Trade  policy. 
Lord  Wharnclifle  was  an  old  man,  scarcely  able 
to  endure  the  strain  of  the  present  excitement, 
and  in  ten  days  after  writing  that  letter  he  died. 
Lord  Stanley  was  firm  in  his  resistance  to  the 
changes   recommended    by   the  Prime    Minister. 


224  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

The  discussions  in  the  Cabinet  continued  from 
day  to  day  until  the  5th  of  December.  Some  of 
the  younger  Tories  were  willing  to  go  with  Peel, 
but  Lord  Stanley  and  the  Duke  of  Buccleugh 
could  not  consent  to  overthrow  the  Corn-Laws, 
which  in  some  shape  or  other  had  taxed  the  peo- 
ple of  England  for  hundreds  of  years.  The 
claTior  of  the  League  could  be  heard  in  the 
council  chamber,  and  rather  than  endure  it  any 
longer  the  whole  Ministry  resigned.  Sir  Robert 
Peel,  speaking  of  this  last  Cabinet  Council, 
says,  "Lord  Stanley  and  the  Duke  of  Buccleugh, 
after  anxious  reflection,  each  signified  his  inability 
to  support  a  measure  involving  the  ultimate  re- 
peal of  the  Corn-Laws.  All  the  other  members 
were  prepared  to  support  such  a  measure.  I 
could  not,  however,  conceal  from  myself  that  the 
assent  given  by  many  was  a  reluctant  one — that 
it  was  founded  rather  on  a  conviction  of  the  pub- 
lic evil  that  must  arise  from  the  dissolution  of  the 
government  at  such  alime  and  from  such  a  cause, 
than  on  the  deliberate  approval  of  the  particular 
course  which  I  urged  upon  their  adoption."  For 
these  reasons  the  Ministry  was  broken  up,  and 
Sir  Robert  went  down  to  Osborne,  and  handed  his 
resignation  to  the  Queen. 

Lord  John  Russell  was  sent  for  to  form  an  ad- 
ministration. Hi  accepted  the  task,  and  there 
was  a  great  deal  of  "  mounting  in  hot  haste,"  and 
"hurrving  to  and  fro,"  and  sending  for  tliis  man 
and  for  that  man.  Although  Lord  .John  Russeli  had 


FAMINE.  225 

obtained  the  promise  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  that  he 
would  support  his  government  in  carrying  out  a 
policy  in  accordance  with  the  measures  advocated 
in  the  Edinburgh  letter,  he  found  himself  unable 
to  form  an  administration.  After  a  couple  of 
weeks  tinkering  with  the  "  crisis,"  he  went  down 
and  told  the  Queen  that  he  had  failed  in  his  at- 
tempt to  form  a  government.  He  confessed  in  the 
language  of  Punch,  who  was  making  fun  of  him 
at  the  time,  that  he  was  not  "  big  enough  for  the 
place." 

When  Lord  John  Russell  was  making  up  the 
"slate,"  he  offered  the  greatest  man  in  England, 
the  author  of  the  commercial  revolution^  a  subor- 
dinate position  as  Vice-President  of  the  Board  of 
Trade,  under  a  titled  mediocrity,  the  Earl  of  Clar- 
endon, who  was  to  be  President  of  the  Board. 
This  was  a  good  deal  like  offering  Oliver  Crom- 
well a  Corporalship  under  the  Earl  of  Essex.  So 
hard  was  it  for  the  "Whig  aristocracy  to  under- 
stand that  the  democracy  of  England  had  at  last 
become  a  power  in  the  state.  Of  course  Cobden 
declined  the  offer,  not  because  the  ofhce  was  not 
big  enough  for  him,  but  because  he  never  sought 
official  distinction  of  any  kind. 

It  was  not  to  be  regretted  that  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell failed  to  form  a  government.  Had  he  suc- 
ceeded, he  would  probably  have  subordinated  the 
mighty  question  of  the  hour  to  the  exigencies  of 
party.  There  was  but  one  man  who  was  ((jual  to 
the    occasion  ;     who    had  the    tact,   ability,   and 


226  HISTORY   OF    FREE   TRADE. 

temper,  the  scientific  knowledge,  the  character, 
and  the  parliamentary  following  to  carry  England 
safely  through.  That  man  was  Peel.  Lord  John 
Russell  advised  the  Queen  to  send  for  him  again, 
and  place  the  government  in  his  hands  once  more. 
Sir  Robert  resumed  his  office,  and  proceeded  to 
reconstruct  his  Cabinet.  Most  of  the  old  mem- 
bers agreed  to  serve  under  him  again.  Among 
the  new  members  was  Gladstone.  Even  the  Duke 
of  Wellington,  whose  Tory  prejudices  were  so  bit- 
ter and  so  strong,  agreed  to  take  office  under  Peel 
once  more,  and  promised  to  stand  by  him  till  the 
fight  was  ended.  It  is  proof  of  the  confidence  of 
the  people  in  Peel's  capacity,  that  as  soon  as  it 
was  known  that  he  had  consented  to  resume  his 
office  the  funds  rose. 

The  average  estimate  of  Peel  as  a  leader  and  a 
statesman  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  ex- 
tract, taken  from  a  London  journal  of  great  pop- 
ularity. The  article  was  published  immediately 
after  the  fall  of  the  ministry,  and  before  it  was 
known  that  Peel  would  again  be  called  to  power. 
The  article  is  a  severe  criticism  on  Peel's  conduct 
in  proposing  measures  directly  antagonistic  to  the 
principles  on  which  his  government  was  formed. 
After  showing  that  with  the  present  Parliament  a 
"\^^hig  ministry  is  impossible,  it  searches  the  Tory 
ranks  for  a  new  leader  to  take  the  place  of  Peel. 
T:  acknowledges  that  it  cannot  find  one,  and  says, 
"  if  a  Tory  Cabinet  cannot  be  constructed,  it  is  a 
fatal  sign  for  the  party.     It  is  in  this  respect  that 


FAMINE.  227 

the  prospects  of  the  Tory  party  are  the  most  un- 
satisfactory. It  is  impossible  to  say  what  men 
occasion  and  opportunity  may  not  bring  forth, 
but  at  present  there  is  neither  an  equal  nor  a  suc- 
cessor to  Peel. 

.    .    .    .    Another  of  his  fathom  have  they  not 
To  lead  their  business. 

Stanley  would  seem  the  approximate  leader ;  but 
he  is  wanting  in  temper.  Graham  would  not  do, 
for  he  has  been  both  a  Whig  and  a  Corn-Law  re- 
pealer. Gladstone  is  beyond  all  question  the 
most  able  man  in  the  ranks  of  the  party,  but 
is  implicated  in  the  tariff',  and  committed 
to  commercial  liberality  as  deeply  as  Peel. 
Taking  the  many  qualifications  that  Sir  Robert 
Peel  possesses,  combined  with  his  position  and 
influence,  the  man  does  not  exist  who  can  supply 
his  place  completely."  This  from  a  hostile  critic 
is  a  fair  criterion  of  the  estimation  in  which  Pee] 
was  regarded  by  his  countrymen  at  that  time. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  Peel  never  was  a 
popular  man  in  the  sense  of  popularity  as  we  un^ 
derstand  it  in  America.  A  man  of  great  wealth 
and  aristocratic  education,  owing  nothing  to  the 
people,  and  absolutely  independent,  he  neither 
courted  them  nor  flattered  them.  He  could  say 
more  truthfully  than  any  man  in  P^ngland, 

I  love  the  people, 
But  do  not  like  to  stage  me  to  their  eyes, 
Though  it  do  well ;  I  do  not  relish  well, 
Their  loud  api)lause  and  aves  vehement, 
Nor  do  I  think  the  man  of  safe  discretion 
Thai  does  atl'tct  it. 


228  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

All  this  time  the  League  was  pressing  its  advan- 
tage; it  faltered  not.  Immense  meetings  were 
held  in  London,  Manchester,  and  other  places. 
At  a  great  meeting  in  Dublin,  Mr.  O'Connell  pro- 
claimed "  every  man  an  enemy  who  did  not  sup- 
port Bright  and  Cobden."  He  said,  "Why  should 
we  not  support  the  abolition  of  the  Corn-Laws? 
Do  they  make  wages  high?  Certainly  not,  but 
they  gave  a  fictitious  value  to  land.  In  the 
county  of  Kilkenny  he  had  enquired  the  rate  of 
wages,  and  found  that  it  was  only  Is  and  6d  per 
week."  He  denounced  the  government  for  not 
opening  the  ports.  On  the  15th  of  December  a 
vast  Free  Trade  meeting  was  held  at  Guildhall,  the 
City  Hall  of  London,  which  was  presided  over  by 
the  Lord  Mayor  himself,  in  his  official  character 
as  chief  magistrate  of  the  city.  The  mighty 
giants,  Gog  and  Magog,  who  had  guarded  London 
for  a  thousand  years  and  more,  were  nearly  shaken 
from  their  pedestals  by  the  cheers  that  went  up 
when  Cobden  rose  to  speak.  He  was  in  great 
spirits  that  day,  for  he  knew  that  the  end  was 
near.  One  of  the  speakers  at  the  meeting  was  Mr. 
Perkins,  who,  in  proposing  one  of  the  resolutions, 
made  the  following  remarks  which  look  very 
curious  to  us  now,  "The  Peel  administration," 
said  Mr.  Perkins,  "  is  afraid  to  face  the  speech  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States  which  will  ar- 
rive in  this  country  within  the  next  ten  days. 
The  Western  States  of  America  have  now  a  ma- 
jority in  Congress,  and  they  never  will  meet  this 
country  on  terms  of  amicable  feeling  and  mutual 


FAMINE.  229 

interests  until  they  have  free  access  to  the  markets 
of  this  country." 

Mr.  Cobden  was  the  chief  speaker  of  the  occa- 
sion, and  he  was  received  with  immense  applause. 
He  was  in  his  most  sarcastic  vein.  Referring  to 
the  break-up  of  the  Cabinet,  he  said,  "  The  Pro- 
tection societies  tell  us  confidently  that  there  is  a 
sufficient  supply  of  corn  and  potatos  in  the 
country.  If  this  is  so,  what  is  the  matter  at  head- 
quarters? If  there  is  no  potato  rot,  what  is  that 
murrain  which  we  have  got  in  the  Cabinet?"  "It 
is  easy,"  said  Mr.  Cobden,  "for  our  Dukes  and 
Squires,  maundering  like  old  women  at  agricul- 
tural meetings,  to  say  there  is  no  scarcity,  and  to 
attempt  to  arrest  the  opinion  in  favor  of  Free 
Trade.  They  can  go  out  to  hunt  and  shoot  during 
the  day,  and  when  they  come  in  they  can  regale 
themselves  with  venison,  champagne,  and  the  like 
dainties.  With  them  there  is  no  scarcity ;  not  so 
with  the  people." 

Two  days  afterwards  there  was  a  great  meeting 
at  Coven  t  Garden  Theatre.  Thirty  thousand 
tickets  of  admission  were  applied  for.  Mr.  Vil- 
liers  presided,  and  speeches  were  made  by  Mr. 
Cobden,  Mr.  Bright,  and  Mr.  Fox.  But  London 
was  excelled  by  Manchester.  At  one  meeting  there 
it  was  resolved  to  raise  twelve  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars  for  the  League,  and  three  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars  was  contributed  that  day. 
Twenty-three  men  subscribed  five  thousand  dol- 
lars each  as  fast  as  the  secretarv  could  write  their 


230  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

names.  Nothing  could  stand  against  such  earnest 
public  opinion  as  that.  The  counter-meetings  got 
|ip  by  the  Agricultural  Protection  Society  were  so 
weak  and  spiritless  that  they  only  served  to  make 
more  apparent  the  invincible  power  of  the  League. 
Badly  educated  and  ill-informed  old  Dukes  mum- 
bled out  complaints  against  the  League,  and 
scolded  Sir  Robert  Peel  for  deserting  them.  At 
one  of  those  Protection  meetings,  the  Duke  of 
Richmond,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  League  had 
mastered  both  Russell  and  Peel,  said,  "  The  Anti- 
Corn-Law  League  is  of  no  power  at  all  unless  it  be 
led  by  men  like  Sir  Robert  Peel  and  Lord  John 
Russell."  These  old  dukes  displayed  such  deplor- 
able ignorance,  and  made  such  comical  blunders 
whenever  they  spoke,  that  they  helped  the  League 
immensely,  and  furnished  great  sport  for  Cob- 
den  who  would  rather  go  gunning  for  dukes  than 
dukes  would  for  pheasants.  At  one  meeting  the 
Duke  of  Norfolk  brought  the  whole  peerage  into 
ridicule  by  recommending  curry  powder  as  a  rem- 
edy for  the  public  distress.  He  had  discovered 
that  an  excellent  thing  to  make  the  laborer  warm 
and  comfortable  in  a  time  of  hunger  was  "  a  pinch 
of  curry  powder  in  a  quantity  of  hot  water,"  and 
the  Duke  of  Cambridge  made  great  amusement  by 
innocently  doubting  the  stories  about  the  potato 
disease,  because,  "really  he  hadn't  noticed  any- 
thing wrong  with  the  potatoes  that  were  furnished 
his  own  table." 

On  the  20th  of  December,  Sir  Robert  Peel,  in  an 


FAMINE.  231 

interview  with  the  Queen,  at  Windsor,  consented 
to  assume  once  more  the  office  of  Prime  Minister. 
That  evening  he  returned  to  London,  and  imme- 
diately summoned  his  old  Cabinet  to  a  council  in 
Downing  street.  It  was  late  at  night  before  they 
got  together,  and  this  time  Sir  Robert  met  them 
not  as  a  colleague,  nor  even  as  their  official  chief, 
but  as  their  master.  He  informed  them  at  once 
that  he  had  not  summoned  them  for  the  purpose 
of  deliberating  on  what  was  to  be  done,  but  for 
the  purpose  of  announcing  to  them  that  he  was 
again  Prime  Minister,  and  whether  supported  or 
not,  was  firmly  resolved  to  meet  Parliament  as 
Minister,  and  to  propose  such  measures  as  the 
public  exigencies  required.  Failure  or  success 
must  depend  upon  their  decision;  but  nothing 
could  shake  his  determination  to  meet  Parliament, 
and  to  advise  the  speech  from  the  throne.  As 
their  advice  on  public  questions  was  not  asked, 
there  was  nothing  for  them  to  decide  upon  but 
the  personal  question  whether  or  not  they  would 
resume  their  offices  as  the  ministers  of  Peel,  and 
promise  to  support  the  changes  in  the  revenue,  and 
economic  systems  of  the  country  which  he  intended 
to  recommend  to  Parliament.  They  all  agreed 
to  serve  under  his  command  again,  except  liOrd 
Stanley  and  the  Duke  of  Buccleugh.  Lord 
Stanley  positively  declined  to  re-enter  the  Cabinet, 
and  the  Duke  of  Buccleugh  requested  time  to 
consider,  which  was  granted  him.  At  the  end  of 
a  couple  of  days  he  gave  in  his  adhesion  to  liis  old 


232  HISTORY  OF  FREE  TRADE. 

chief  and  the  new  policy.  He  resumed  his  place 
in  the  Cabinet,  and  agreed  to  support  the  measures 
of  Peel.  For  fifteen  years  a  superstition  had  pre- 
vailed among  the  Tories  that  nobody  but  Peel  was 
competent  to  govern  England.  The  strong  hold 
it  had  upon  them  was  now  apparent  when  the 
Duke  of  Wellington,  the  Duke  of  Buccleugh,  the 
Earl  of  Aberdeen,  and  men  of  that  character 
yielded  their  individuality  to  him  once  more,  and 
agreed  to  support  measures  they  had  always 
opposed,  believing  them  to  be  essential  to  the 
welfare  of  the  country,  because  Peel  said  so, 


CHAPTER   XV. 
THE  REFORMED  SYSTEM. 

The  Reconstructed  Ministry — Opening  of  Parliament — 
Ominous  Words  from  the  Throne — The  Duke  of  Rich- 
mond Attacks  the  Ministry— Peel  Abandons  the  Pro- 
tective Policy — Advocates  a  TariflF  for  Revenue  Only — 
His  Great  Speech — Raw  Materials — The  Corn-Laws 
Doomed — Lord  Beaconsfield  on  Peel's  Speech — His  C!om- 
mand  over  the  House  of  Commons. 

At  the  beginning  of  1846  the  public  mind  of 
England  was  in  a  feverish  condition.  Business 
was  good,  but  there  was  great  anxiety  about  the 
scarcity  of  food.  The  contradictory  reports  on 
that  subject  increased  the  excitement  instead  of 
allaying  it.  Those  in  favor  of  changes  and 
reforms  were  accused  of  exaggerating  the  reports 
about  the  failure  of  the  crops,  while  the  other  side 
were  charged  with  concealing  the  extent  of  the 
calamity.  The  relations  between  England  and 
the  United  States  were  unfriendly  and  even  war- 
like because  of  the  Oregon  dispute,  and  the  pro- 
ceedings of  Congress  were  watched  with  deep 
concern.  The  break-up  of  the  Cabinet  was  a 
disturbing  cause,  and  although  it  was  known  that 
Sir  Robert  Peel  would  propose  some  changes  in 
the  commercial  policy  of  the  country,  yet  nobody 
knew  what  the  changes  would  be.  To  create  a 
public  opinion  strong  enough  to  compel  him  to  a 

233 


234  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

radical  repeal  of  the  Corn-Laws  became  the  object 
of  the  League,  and  to  that  end  immense  meetings 
were  held  in  all  parts  of  the  Kingdom.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Protection  societies  held  counter 
meetings,  and  tried  to  create  a  rival  agitation,  in 
order  to  restrain  the  Prime  Minister  and  keep  him 
to  a  conservative  policy.  In  this  contest  the 
League  had  a  great  advantage  both  in  the  large- 
ness of  its  gatherings  and  in  the  vigor  and  ability 
of  its  speakers.  It  was  always  on  the  aggressive 
while  the  Protection  orators  were  always  on  the 
defensive.  The  League  courted  discussion,  while 
the  Protection  societies  avoided  it.  At  a  meeting 
of  the  Protection  society,  held  at  Wolverhampton, 
it  was  distinctly  stated  that  discussion  would  not 
be  allowed,  and  the  "  noble  chairman,"  the  Earl 
of  Sandwich,  said  that  only  on  that  condition  had 
he  consented  to  take  the  chair.  It  is  easy  to  see 
that  meetings  like  that  did  more  injury  to  their 
own  side  than  to  the  other. 

In  this  nervous  condition  of  the  country  the 
Queen  opened  Parliament  on  the  20th  of  January, 
1846.  The  speech  from  the  throne  foreshadowed 
what  was  coming.  It  contained  these  ominous 
words : 

"I  have  had  great  satisfaction  in  giving  my 
assent  to  the  measures  which  you  have  presented 
to  me  from  time  to  time,  calculated  to  extend 
commerce,  and  to  stimulate  domestic  skill  and 
industry  by  the  repeal  of  prohibitory,  and  the 
relaxation  of  Protective  duties." 


THE   NEW  SYSTEM.  235 

"  I  recommend  you  to  take  into  your  early  con- 
sideration whether  the  principles  on  which  you 
have  acted  may  not  with  advantage  be  yet  more 
extensively  applied,  and  whether  it  may  not  be  in 
your  power,  after  a  careful  review  of  the  existing 
duties  upon  many  articles,  the  produce  or  manu- 
facture of  other  countries,  to  make  such  further 
reductions  and  remissions  as  may  tend  to  ensure 
the  continuance  of  the  great  benefits  to  which  I 
have  adverted,  and  by  enlarging  our  commercial 
intercourse,  to  strengthen  the  bonds  of  amity  with 
foreign  powers." 

In  the  House  of  Lords  the  mover  and  seconder 
of  the  address  in  answer  to  the  royal  speech  were 
listened  to  with  the  usual  courtesy,  and  then 
"  Sir  Devon,  the  bull,"  proceeded  to  butt  the  cars 
off  the  track.  The  Duke  of  Richmond  de- 
nounced the  anticipated  policy  of  the  government, 
and  called  upon  their  lordships  not  to  abandon 
the  Protective  System.  Referring  to  the  mover  of 
the  address,  who  had  asked  the  House  to  postpone 
discussion  until  they  had  heard  the  plans  of  the 
government,  he  said,  "  I  have  heard  enough  to 
satisfy  me  what  the  Minister  intends  to  do.  He 
intends  to  withdraw  Protection."  He  then  intro- 
duced the  ancient  arguments  of  the  monopolists, 
that  laws  which  gave  them  a  right  to  tax  their 
fellow  citizens  were  in  the  nature  of  a  contract, 
and  could  not  be  repealed.  He  said,  "  This  is 
getting  rid  of  the  compact  which  Sir  Robert  Peel 
made  in  1842  with  the  agriculturalists,  and  which 


236  HISTORY  OP  FREE  TRADE. 

Mr.  Gladstone  said  was  made  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  to  the  agriculturists  a  permanent  law. 
I  hope  this  House  will  not  so  far  abandon  its 
duty  as  to  be  .Intimidated  by  the  Anti-Corn-Law 
League,  or  by  the  money  that  body  has  raised." 
He  then  declared  that  everybody  knew  that  the 
Protection  laws  were  not  for  the  benefit  of  one 
class  only,  but  were  for  the  benefit  of  every  class 
in  the  community. 

The  Duke  of  Richmond,  like  many  others  of  the 
English  nobility,  had  plenty  of  courage,  but  little 
wisdom.  He  had  proved  his  courage  at  Waterloo, 
and  at  that  battle  he  received  a  French  bullet  in 
his  lungs.  He  was  perfectly  willing  to  fight  the 
Free  Trade  locomotive.  Wellington,  his  old  com- 
mander, answered  him.  He  told  him  it  was  no 
use  trying  to  stop  the  train ;  that  the  Corn-Laws 
were  sentenced,  and  that  the  sentence  would  be 
executed  in  a  few  days.  Still  the  Duke  fought 
desperately,  until  old  Wellington  thought,  like 
Richard,  that  there  must  be  at  least  "  six  Rich- 
monds  in  the  field." 

Sir  Robert  Peel  made  a  short  explanation  that 
same  night  in  the  House  of  Commons.  In  the 
course  of  it  he  said  that  his  opinions  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Protective  duties  had  undergone  a  change. 
He  was  yielding  to  the  force  of  argument  and 
more  enlarged  experience.  He  had  closely 
watched  the  operation  of  Protective  duties  during 
the  past  four  or  five  years,  and  was  now  convinced 
that  the  arguments  in  favor  of  their  maintenance 


THE   NEW   SYSTEM.  237 

were  no  longer  tenable.  He  was  convinced  that 
low  wages  were  not  the  result  of  low  prices  of 
food.  Sir  Robert  supported  this  last  statement  by 
facts  that  could  not  be  denied,  the  rate  of  wages 
and  the  rate  of  prices  that  had  prevailed  during 
the  last  six  years.  He  said,  "  For  three  years 
preceding  those  last  past,  prices  were  high  while 
wages  were  low,  while  during  the  past  three  years, 
prices  were  low  while  wages  were  high."  This 
was  a  very  uncomfortable  statement  for  those 
political  economists  who  had  been  trading  on  the 
fallacy  that  the  Protective  tariff  was  necessary  in 
order  to  secure  high  wages  for  the  workingman, 
and  that  cheap  bread  and  meat,  and  clothes, 
meant  low  wages. 

In  the  year  1884  the  National  Republican  Con- 
vention at  Chicago  performed  the  paradoxical 
feat  of  adopting  a  high  tariff  platform,  and  plac- 
ing upon  it  a  candidate  who  is  supposed  to  repre- 
sent a  "  spirited  foreign  policy,"  which  they 
interpret  to  mean  a  policy  that  will  secure  for  the 
United  States  a  larger  trade  with  the  South 
American  republics,  and  the  empire  of  Brazil. 
Thus  the  candidate  is  to  pull  the  wagon  one  way 
and  the  platform  the  other.  The  party  means  by 
"  trade "  only  selling,  but  not  buying,  and  Mr. 
BUiine  himself  in  the  manifesto  published  by  him 
in  1882,  in  explanation  of  his  course  as  Secretary 
of  State,  says  that  the  intention  of  his  policy  was, 
"  To  cultivate  such  friendly  commercial  relations 
with  all  American  countries  as  would  lead  to  a 


238  HISTORY   OF  FREE   TRADE. 

large  increase  in  the  export  trade  of  the  United 
States,  by  supplying  those  fabrics  in  which  we  are 
abundantly  able  to  compete  with  the  manufactur- 
ing nations  of  Europe."  The  history  of  England 
and  of  our  own  country  shows  that  this  desirable 
object  can  only  be  accomplished  in  one  way,  and 
that  is  by  a  reduction  of  the  tariff.  This  truth 
had  forced  itself  upon  the  mind  of  Sir  Robert 
Peel,  by  the  result  of  actual  experiment.  In  the 
explanation  which  we  are  now  considering,  he 
said,  "  Since  the  year  1842,  when  the  first  invasion 
was  •  made  on  the  principle  of  Protection,  the 
exports  of  the  country  had  risen  from  £42,000,000 
to  £47,000,000  in  1843,  to  £58,000,000  in  1844,  and 
leaving  out  the  trade  with  China,  the  increase  had 
been  from  £42,000,000  in  1842  to  £46,000,000  in 
1844,  and  to  £.56,000,000  in  1845.  The  results  of 
the  revenue  presented  a  similar  picture.  The 
state  of  morality  was  also  a  gratifying  result  of 
increased  prosperity.  The  commitments  through- 
out the  country  had  enormously  decreased." 
Against  a  stone  wall  built  up  from  facts  like  these 
the  taunts  of  the  Protectionists  that  Peel  had 
"  deserted  "  and  "  betrayed  "  them  made  little , 
impression,  and  it  was  finally  agreed  that  on  the 
next  Tuesday  the  Minister  should  present  his  new 
commercial  plans.  Peel's  was  a  Free  Trade 
speech,  and,  as  Cobden  wrote  the  next  day  to  a 
friend,  "  it  would  have  tlone  for  Covent  Garden 
Theatre,"  the  place  where  the  League  meetings 
were  held.     It  was  not  the  speech  of  a  minister 


THE  NEW  8Y3TEM.  239 

who  was  yielding  to  pressure,  but  of  a  man  who 
had  become  convinced.  As  he  said  a  few  nights 
afterwards,  it  was  the  declaration  of  a  man  who 
had  become  converted  to  the  belief  that  the  Pro- 
tective System  was  "  was  not  only  unpolitic,  but 
unjust." 

Tuesday,  January  27th,  1846,  was  an  exciting 
day  in  London.  Although  it  was  known  that  on 
that  evening  the  Prime  Minister  intended  to  pro- 
pose in  Parliament  a  radical  change  in  the  com- 
mercial policy  of  England,  yet  it  was  not  known 
in  detail  what  the  change  would  be.  Although 
Parliament  did  not  meet  until  four  or  five  o'clock, 
crowds  of  people  began  to  assemble  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  House  of  Commons  as  early  as 
one  o'clock,  and  before  four  o'clock  the  house 
itself  was  crowded  in  every  part.  Westminster 
Hall  had  not  seen  so  great  a  multitude  since  the 
trial  of  Warren  Hastings,  while  the  open  street 
was  densely  crowded  from  Westminster  Abbey  to 
Whitehall.  The  Peer's  gallery  was  crowded  full 
of  Dukes,  and  Earls,  and  Barons,  anxious  to  learn 
the  fate  of  those  monopolies  which  their  order 
had  enjoyed  for  centuries.  The  Duke  of  Cam- 
bridge, the  Queen's  uncle,  was  there,  and  Prince 
Albert  was  accommodated  with  a  seat  inside  the 
bar.  A  few  nights  afterwards  his  presence  there 
was  criticised  by  Lord  George  Bentinck,  who 
resented  the  presence  of  the  Queen's  husband 
within  the  House  of  Commons,  as  an  attempt  of 
the  Crown  to  influence  the  free  debates  of  Parlia- 


240  HISTORY   OF   FREE  TRADE. 

ment.  Some  sort  of  excuse  was  given  by  the 
Court,  and  the  Prince  never  entered  the  House 
again. 

Those  members  who  were  known  to  be  in  favor 
of  Free  Trade  were  loudly  cheered,  as  they  were 
severally  recognized,  while  the  Protectionists  were 
received  in  silence.  The  Duke  of  Wellington 
received  a  great  ovation,  for  it  was  known  that  he 
had  promised  Peel  to  assist  him  in  carrying  Free 
Trade.  Although  he  had  opposed  every  popular 
movement  of  his  time  he  was  always  forgiven 
because  of  Waterloo.  Near  five  o'clock,  a  war  of 
cheering  rolling  along  the  street,  announced  the 
coming  of  Sir  Robert  Peel.  As  he  alighted  from 
his  carriage  he  raised  his  hat  in  acknowledgement 
of  the  hearty  greetings  of  his  countrymen,  and 
passed  into  the  House.  He  carried  a  small  box 
in  his  left  hand.  It  contained  the  death  warrant 
of  the  Protective  System.  In  that  little  box  were 
carefully  arranged  the  details  of  the  new  commer- 
cial policy,  the  enlightened  system  of  Free  Trade. 

About  five  o'clock  Sir  Robert  Peel  rose  and 
moved  that  the  House  resolve  itself  into  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  on  customs  and  corn  importa- 
tion. The  House  having  resolved  itself  into 
committee,  Sir  Robert  began  his  speech.  For 
three  hours  the  crowd  listened  to  the  Minister,  as 
one  after  another,  each  protected  interest  went 
down  to  its  doom.  He  gave  due  notice  that 
while  he  called  upon  the  agriculturists  to  resign 
the  protection  they  had  long  enjoyed,  he  should 


THE   NEW  SYSTEM.  241 

require  the  manirfacturers  to  resign  theirs  also. 
With  just  and  impartial  hand  he  struck  Protection 
from  the  linen,  the  woolen,  and  the  cotton  manu- 
facturers, from  the  iron-workers  and  the  silk- 
weavers,  from  the  soap-makers  and  the  brass- 
founders,  from  the  shoemakers  and  the  tanners, 
from  ribbon  makers  and  from  hatters,  from  tin 
workers  and  from  button-makers,  from  tailors  and 
from  carriage  makers,  from  brewers  and  from 
clockmakers,  from  West  India  sugar  planters  and 
from — almost  everybody. 

With  great  candor  Sir  Robert  Peel  described  the 
process  of  his  conversion  from  the  errors  of  Pro- 
tection to  the  truths  of  Free  Trade.  He  quoted 
some  good  doctrine  from  the  American  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  who  had  lately  said,  "  By  counter- 
vailing restrictions  we  injure  our  own  fellow- 
citizens  much  more  than  the  foreign  nation  at 
whom  we  purpose  to  aim  their  force,  and  in  the 
conflict  of  opposing  tariffs  we  sacrifice  our  own 
commerce,  agriculture,  and  navigation.  Let  our 
commerce  be  as  free  as  our  political  institutions. 
Let  us  with  revenue  duties  only,  open  our  ports  to 
all  the  world."  Thus  among  the  missionaries 
who  had  lielped  to  convert  Sir  Robert  Peel  was 
the  American  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Let  us 
hope  that  the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  we 
shall  see  another  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  equally 
wise. 

At  the  very  beginning  of  his  speech  Sir  Robert 
Peel  laid  the  foundations  of  his  argument,  first, 


242  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRAD^. 

on  the  scientific  wisdom  of  the  Free  Trade  theory, 
and  secondly,  on  the  practical  results  of  the 
experiment  of  1842.  For  three  or  four  years  he 
had  patronized  Free  Trade  as  a  "  theory  "  which 
might  be  philosophically  correct,  but  was  so  ham- 
pered and  qualified  by  the  accidents  of  govern- 
ment and  actual  business,  by  foreign  relations, 
and  local  surroundings,  as  to  be  of  doubtful 
utility  in  practical  political  economy.  He  had 
passed  out  of  the  region  of  doubt  into  the  strong 
light  of  conviction  and  now  advocated  Free  Trade 
as  just  and  wise,  not  only  in  theory,  but  in 
practice,  too.  He  said,  "  I  am  about  to  proceed  on 
the  assumption  that  the  repeal  of  prohibitory  and 
the  relaxation  of  protective  duties  is  in  itself 
a  wise  policy — that  protective  duties  abstractedly 
and  on  principle  are  open  to  objection — I  am 
about  to  act  on  this  presumption — that  during  the 
period  of  the  last  three  years  there  has  been  in 
this  country  an  increased  productiveness  of 
revenue,  notwithstanding  the  relaxation  of  heavy 
taxation — that  there  has  been  an  increased  demand 
for  labor;  that  there  has  been  increased  com- 
merce; that  there  has  been  increased  comfort, 
content,  and  peace  in  this  country;  and  I  say 
that  the  enjoyment  of  these  benefits  has  been  con- 
current with  the  policy  of  repealing  prohibitory, 
and  reducing  protective  duties." 

This  was  a  strong  opening,  and  it  was  plain 
that  if  he  could  prove  what  he  said  by  the  facts 
of  commerce,  revenue,  and  wages,  the  Prime  Min- 


THE  NEW  SYSTEM.  243 

ister  had  already  made  out  his  case  against  the 
Protective  System.  That  he  felt  confident  of  his 
ability  to  do  so  was  plain  from  the  challenge 
with  which  he  accompanied  his  statement.  He 
called  upon  the  opposition  to  meet  him  with  a 
counter  proposition,  viz.,  "  that  Protection  is  In 
itself  a  good."  He  justified  the  "horizontal" 
plan  on  the  ground  that  whatever  a  man  lost  by 
the  withdrawal  of  Protection  from  his  own  interest 
was  made  up  to  him  by  the  gain  which  he  re- 
ceived by  the  withdrawal  of  Protection  from  all 
other  interests.  He  said,  "  I  make  no  separate 
atid  isolated  proposals,  I  have  confidence  that 
the  proposal  for  which  I  contend  is  just,  when  I 
ask  all  Protectionists  to  make  the  sacrifice,  if  it 
be  a  sacrifice,  which  the  application  of  the  prin- 
ciple requires  of  them,"  He  then  referred  to  the 
sacrifice  he  had  made  of  revenue  in  admitting 
raw  materials  free,  and  said,  "  In  1844  we  reduced 
altogether  the  duty  upon  wool;  in  1845  we  re- 
duced altogether  the  duty  upon  cotton.  There 
hardly  remains  a  raw  material  imported  from 
other  countries  upon  which  the  duty  has  not  been 
reduced.  The  manufacturers  of  this  country 
have  free  access  to  the  raw  materials  which  con- 
stitute the  fabrics  of  their  manufactures,  I  am 
entitled,  therefore,  I  think,  to  call  upon  tae  man- 
ufacturer to  relax  the  Protection  which  he 
enjoys," 

Sir  Robert  Peel  then  criticised  as  unjust  and 
unwise  all  Protective  taxes  on  the  clothing  of  the 


244  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

people.  He  said,  "  In  dealing  with  the  clothing 
of  the  great  body  of  the  people,  I  call  on  the 
manufacturers  of  the  great  articles  of  cotton, 
woolen,  and  linen  to  relinguish  their  Protection." 
He  then  went  into  historical  argument  to  prove 
that  the  Protective  System  had  originated  with 
the  manufacturers,  and  that  the  agriculturists  had 
adopted  it  in  self-defense.  He  quoted  Adam 
Smith  as  saying,  "  Country  gentlemen  and  farmers 
are,  to  their  great  honor,  of  all  people  the  least 
subject  to  the  wretched  spirit  of  monopoly." 
This  was  received  with  loud  laughter  and  derision 
by  the  Free  Traders,  but  Sir  Robert  with  admir- 
able coolness  and  self-command  repeated  the 
quotation,  and  proceeded  thus,  "  The  manu- 
facturers seem  to  have  been  the  original  inventors 
of  those  restraints  upon  the  importation  of  foreign 
goods  which  secure  to  them  the  monopoly  of  the 
home  market.  It  was  probably  in  imitation  of 
them,  and  to  put  themselves  on  a  level  with  those 
who  they  found  were  disposed  to  oppress  them 
that  the  country  gentlemen  and  farmers  of  Great 
Britain  so  far  forgot  the  generosity  which  is 
natural  to  their  station,  as  to  demand  the  exclusive 
privilege  of  supplying  to  their  countrymen  corn 
and  butcher's  meat." 

All  that  was  probably  ironical  on  Peel's  part, 
but  whether  so  or  not,  it  was  a  fair  commentary 
on  the  Protective  System  which  is  a  competition 
of  classes  to  get  "  level "  with  one  another  and 
something  to  boot.     Lord  Beaconsfield,  in  describ- 


THE  NEW  SYSTEM.  245 

ing  this  remarkable  speech,  a  dozen  years  after- 
wards, insinuates  that  Peel  was  not  ingenuous  in 
making  this  comparison  between  the  "country- 
gentlemen  "  and  the  manufacturers,  to  the  advan- 
tage of  the  former,  and  that  it  was  only  a  part  of 
that  consummate  art  by  which  he  managed  the 
House  of  Commons.  Of  this  part  of  it  Lord 
Beaconsfield  says,  "  While  the  agitated  agriculture 
of  the  United  Kingdom  awaited  with  breathless 
suspense  the  formal  notification  of  its  doom, 
wondering  by  what  cunning  arguments  the  policy 
of  its  betrayer  could  be  palliated,  the  Minister 
addressed  and  pursued  at  considerable  length  to 
the  wondering  assembly,  an  elaborate  and  argu- 
mentative statement,  the  object  of  which  was  to 
reconcile  the  manufacturers  to  the  deprival  of 
Protection.  Considering  that  this  Protection  was 
merely  nominal,  the  sacrifice  did  not  appear  to  be 
too  severe,  yet  the  orator  seemed  scarcely  sanguine 
of  inducing  his  audience  to  consent  to  it.  With 
imperturbable  gravity  the  Minister  read  to  the 
House  the  passage  of  Adam  Smith  in  which  that 
eminent  writer  acknowledges,  that '  country  gen- 
tlemen and  farmers  are  the  least  subject  to  the 
wretched  spirit  of  monopoly,'  and  fixing,  with  a 
sort  of  mournful  reprobation,  the  manufacturers 
as  the  originators  of  the  Protective  System  in  this 
country,  the  speaker  declared,  amid  the  titter  of 
the  Free  Traders,  which,  however,  was  solemnly 
reproved,  'that  it  was  but  justice  that  they  should 
set    the    example    of    relinquishment."         ord 


246  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

Beaconsfield  evidently  regarded  the  whole  tribute 
to  the  country  gentlemen  as  what  the  boys  call 
"  taffy,"  and  had  he  known  the  word  he  would 
probably  have  used  it.  The  whole  comparison 
was  a  sort  of  soothing  chloroform  by  which  Peel 
endeavored  to  quiet  the  country  gentlemen  while 
he  was  pulling  their  teeth.  Whatever  import 
duties  remained  on  the  manufactures  of  cotton 
and  woolen  clothing  under  the  proposed  new 
tariff,  was  limited  to  the  finer  fabrics  indulged  in 
by  the  rich  alone;  on  those  used  by  the  great 
body  of  the  people  the  tax  was  altogether 
abolished. 

As  it  is  now  in  the  United  States,  so  it  was  in 
England  then,  each  protected  interest  purchased 
the  silence  of  a  rival  interest  by  protecting  that 
also,  leaving  the  great  mass  of  the  consumers  to 
bear  the  burden  of  the  whole  tax  accumulations ; 
for  instance,  in  order  to  protect  the  tanner,  gov- 
ernment levied  a  high  tariff  on  tanned  leather, 
and  then  it  bribed  the  shoemaker  and  the  saddler 
into  acquiescence  by  levying  a  similar  tariff  on 
saddles  and  harness,  and  boots  and  shoes.  Of 
course,  in  returning  to  a  correct  system,  the 
reverse  plan  must  be  adopted,  and  the  reduction 
of  the  tax  on  one  must  be  accompanied  by  a  kin- 
dred reduction  on  the  other.  Recognizing  the 
force  of  this,  Sir  Robert  Peel  said,  "  Having  re- 
mitted the  duty  on  almost  every  article  connected 
with  the  tanning  process,  I  propose  to  remit  the 
duty  on  dressed  hides.    There  will  then  not  be 


THE  NEW  SYSTEM.  247 

one  raw  material  which  the  manufacturer  of 
leather  cannot  command  without  the  payment  of 
duty.  Having  done  that  I  propose  to  diminish 
the  duty  on  foreign  boots  and  shoes  imported 
into  this  country."  This  was  the  "horizontal" 
plan,  and  it  is  diflficult  to  see  how  any  other  could 
be  either  just  or  wise.  To  take  the  tax  burthen 
from  leather  in  one  shape,  and  leave  it  upon 
leather  in  some  other  shape,  would  be  unsj,ates- 
manlike  and  unfair;  and  all  the  taxes  upon 
leather  being  removed,  there  was  no  longer  any 
excuse  for  permitting  the  shoemaker  to  levy  taxes 
upon  everybody  else,  in  order  to  protect  his  busi- 
ness. Sir  Robert  Peel  applied  this  principle  to 
hats  and  other  things.  Having  remitted  the 
duties  on  the  materials  of  the  hat  manufacture, 
he  then  reduced  the  duty  on  hats.  He  still  clung 
to  the  delusion  that  he  could  make  a  missionary  pul- 
pit of  the  custom  house,  and  use  the  tariff  sched- 
ule as  an  abolition  tract,  so,  while  he  reduced  the 
tariff  on  sugar,  he  limited  the  reduction  to  that 
grown  by  free  labor.  He  proposed  to  punish  Brazil, 
Spain,  and  the  United  States  for  preserving  slav- 
ery by  making  a  custom  house  discrimination 
against  their  sugar.  At  last  he  came  to  the  Corn- 
Laws,  and  in  the  midst  of  breathless  anxiety,  he 
announced  that  the  duties  on  Indian  corn,  ;  nd  on 
all  cattle,  vegetables,  and  other  provisions  were  to 
cease  at  once.  On  wheat,  barley,  oats,  peas,  and 
beans,  a  small  duty  would  remain  for  three  years^ 
and  on  the  first  day  of  February,  1849,  that  duty 


248  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

also  was  to  cease  entirely.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
go  into  any  further  details  of  an  argument  which 
lasted  three  hours  and  a  quarter,  and  which  con- 
cluded amidst  great  excitement  on  his  own  side  of 
the  House,  and  immense  cheering  on  the  other. 

This  was  the  most  important  speech  delivered 
in  Parliament  in  modern  times;  it  was  fraught 
with  greater  consequences  to  Great  Britain  than 
any  other,  and  it  was  answered  by  the  Tories  not 
with  argument,  but  with  personal  denunciation  of 
the  Minister.  Lord  Beaconsfield,  who  was  the 
most  virulent  and  sarcastic  of  all  Peel's  enemies, 
and  who  came  into  parliamentary  prominence 
through  his  poisonous  assaults  upon  him,  writing 
of  the  speech  in  1858,  attempts  to  throw  contempt 
upon  it  while  admitting  its  power.  He  says,  "  But 
no  inability  to  endure  the  dread  suspense  on  the 
part  of  his  former  adherents  effected  the  slightest 
alteration  in  the  tactics  which  the  consummate 
master  had  arranged.  He  had  resolved  that  a 
considerable  time  should  elapse  before  they  learnt 
their  doom,  and  that  a  due  impression  should  be 
conveyed  to  the  House  and  to  the  country  that  on 
this  night  of  sacrifices  the  agricultural  classes 
were  not  the  only  victims.  And  in  this  he  suc- 
ceeded so  well,  that,  even  to  this  day,  controver- 
sies are  continually  arising  as  to  the  nature  and 
degree  of  Protection  still  retained  and  enjoyed  by 
the  staple  manufactures  of  the  country." 

Lord  Beaconsfield  tries  to  account  for  the  power 
of  a  speech  he  could  not  answer  by  pretending 


THE   NEW  SYSTEM.  249 

that  the  success  of  it  was  due  to  the  peculiar  tac- 
tics and  management  of  Peel  rather  than  to  any 
merit  in  the  production  itself.  He  says,  "  This 
remarkable  man,  who  in  private  life  was  con- 
strained, and  often  awkward,  who  could  never  ad- 
dress a  public  meeting  or  make  an  after-dinner 
speech  without  being  ill-at-ease,  and  generally 
saying  something  stilted,  or  even  a  little  ridicu- 
lous, in  the  Senate  was  the  readiest,  easiest,  most 
flexible  and  adroit  of  men.  He  played  upon  the 
House  of  Commons  as  on  an  old  fiddle.  And  to- 
night, the  manner  in  which  he  proceeded  to  deal 
with  the  duties  on  candles  and  soap,  while  all 
were  thinking  of  the  duties  on  something  else; 
the  bland  and  conciliatory  air  with  which  he  an- 
nounced a  reduction  of  the  impost  on  boot  fronts 
and  shoe  leather,  while  visions  of  deserted  vil- 
lages and  reduced  rentals  were  torturing  his  neigh- 
bors, were  all  characteristic  of  his  command  over 
himself,  and  those  whom  he  addressed." 

Again,  trying  to  explain  the  success  of  Peel  in 
presenting  his  new  policy  to  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, and  the  discomfiture  of  the  Protectionists, 
Lord  Beaconsfield,  instead  of  admitting  that  it 
was  too  great  for  him  and  his  party  to  answer,  im- 
pudently pretends  that  it  was  too  little.  He  re- 
marks/, '•  Some  fine  judges  have  recognized  in  all 
this  only  the  artifice  of  a  consummate  master  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  lowering  the  tone  of  an 
excited  assembly  by  habitual  details,  and  almost 
proving  by  his  accustomed  manner  of  addressing 


250  HISTORY   OF  FREE  TRADE. 

them  that,  after  all,  he  could  have  done  nothing 
very  extraordinary.  When  a  Senate,  after  a  long 
interval  and  the  occurrence  of  startling  transact- 
ions, assembles,  if  not  to  impeach,  at  least  to  de- 
nounce, a  Minister,  and  then  are  gravely  anhointed 
with  domestic  lard,  and  invited  to  a  speculation 
on  the  price  of  salt  pork,  an  air  of  littleness  is 
irresistibly  infused  into  the  affair,  from  which  it 
seems  hopeless  to  extricate  the  occasion."  All 
this  is  ingenious,  and  contains  within  it  a  flavor 
of  aristocratic  contempt  for  details  and  vulgar 
things  like  lard  and  soap  and  leather,  but  the  fact 
remains  that  the  speech  made  a  profound  impres- 
sion upon  Parliament  and  the  country,  an  impres- 
sion which  has  never  been  removed,  but  which 
remains  to  this  day. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
THE  NEW  POLICY. 

Peel's  Remedy  for  Famine — Lord  Morpeth  Returns  to  Par- 
liament— The  Protectionists  Demand  Time — Lord  John 
Russell  Supports  the  Government — His  Explanation — 
Let  us  Sell,  but  not  Buy— Stafford  O'Brien— The  Farm 
Laborers  of  Wiltshire — Peel's  Speech — Lord  Beacons- 
field's  Review  of  it — Cobden's  Spefech — Lord  George 
Bentinck  Closes  the  Debate — Majority  for  the  Govern- 
ment. 

The  plan  of  Sir  Robert  Peel  was  a  surprise  to 
all  parties.  Although  much  was  expected,  the 
country  was  astonished  at  the  bold  and  com- 
prehensive sweep  of  the  new  policy.  The 
Free  Traders  were  literally  dumb,  for  although 
the  measure  fell  short  of  their  extremely  radical 
demands,  it  came  so  much  nearer  to  them  than 
they  had  expected  that  they  felt  it  would  be  un- 
gracious to  criticise  the  Minister,  who  had  a  rebel- 
lious party  on  his  hands,  and  the  fortunes  of  a 
great  empire  in  his  keeping.  They  felt  that  Peel 
was  bringing  all  the  resources  of  patriotic  states- 
manship to  the  solution  of  a  revenue  and  econ- 
omic problem  that  was  agitating  the  country,  and 
unsettling  the  theories  of  ages,  that  he  was  actu- 
ated l)y  a  sincere  desire  to  establish  the  pros- 
])erity  of  his  country  on  a  permanent  and  sure 
foundation,  and  at  the  same  time  avert  an  impend- 


252  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

ing  scarcity  which  might  culminate  in  famine. 
They  therefore  said  nothing,  leaving  the  task  of 
censure  to  his  own  party.  The  Tories  immediately 
began  to  whimper  and  scold ;  they  dwelt  upon  the 
perversion  of  the  government  to  the  Free  Trade 
heresy,  but  they  did  not  attempt  to  refute  the 
arguments  of  the  Prime  Minister,  nor  to  contra- 
dict his  testimony.  Their  oratory  might  have  all 
been  condensed  into  the  painful  exclamation  of 
the  Earl  of  March,  son  and  heir  of  the  Duke  of 
Kichmond,  a  baby  statesman  with  no  brains,  who 
cried  Out,  that,  "  really  he  never  in  all  his  life  was 
so  horrified,  so  distressed,  or  so  astonished,  as 
when  he  heard  the  Prime  Minister's  plans  that 
night."  The  speeches  were  all  in  support  of  a 
motion  for  continuance.  Time  to  consider  such 
important  changes  was  necessary ;  and  finally  two 
weeks  was  granted.  There  were  some  who  de- 
manded that  the  sense  of  the  country  should  be 
taken  first;  that  Parliament  should  be  dissolved, 
and  a  new  election  had.  Some  were  in  favor  of 
referring  the  whole  matter  to  a  "  commission," 
and  thus  obtain  a  reprieve;  but  it  was  of  no  use, 
and  on  Monday,  the  9th  of  February,  the  great 
debate  began,  the  most  important  that  had  taken 
place  since  1688.  The  feature  of  the  night  was 
the  introduction  of  Lord  Morpeth,  who  had  just 
been  elected  from  the  West  Riding  of  Yorkshire, 
where  he  was  defeated  in  1841.  He  brought  with 
him  no  less  than  103  petitions  from  Yorkshire 
asking  for  Free  Trade.     One  petition  from  Leeds 


THE   NEW   POLICY.  253 

was  signed  by  19,000  men,  and  one  from  Bradford 
by  14,000.  Some  amusement  was  created  by  Mr. 
Ferrand,  who  challenged  the  signatures  i;8  not  be- 
ing the  free  and  unbias  sed  acts  of  the  men  who 
signed.  He  was  prepared  to  prove,  he  said,  that 
the  workingmen  in  many ,  factories  in  York- 
shire were  obliged  to  come  into  the  counting 
houses  of  the  owners  and  sign.  Lord  Morpeth 
silenced  him  by  saying  that  in  his  belief  the  sig- 
natures were  all  the  true  and  independent  acts  of 
the  parties ;  and  then,  amid  considerable  excite- 
ment, the  question  having  been  put  that  the 
Speaker  leave  the  chair  that  the  House  might 
resolve  itself  into  a  committee  on  the  Corn  and 
Importation  acts,  Mr.  P.  Miles,  on  the  part  of  the 
Protectionists,  moved  as  an  amendment  that  the 
House  should  resolve  itself  into  committee  that 
day  six  months;  and  on  that  amendment  the 
great  debate  began. 

Mr.  Miles  was  not  regarded  as  a  very  able  man, 
and  his  remarks  merely  served  to  open  the  dis- 
cussion; nothing  [more.  He  repeated  the  usual 
Protection  generalities,  but  brought  no  evidence 
nor  attempted  any  proof.  He  declared  that  there 
should  1)6  a  dissolution  of  Parliament  before  such 
momentous  changes,  and  he  believed  that  in  the 
mind  of  the  Prime  Minister  the  cause  of  Protec- 
tion had  long  been  doomed,  and  that  potatoes 
were  the  last  pretext  for  sealing  its  fate.  He  re- 
peated Peel's  old  argument  about  the  danger 
whicli  would  arise  if  the  country  became  depend- 


254  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

ent  upon  foreigners  for  corn.    The  country  might 
now  consider  Free  Trade  to  be  the  ruling  princi- 
ple of  Her  Majesty's  government.     Mr.  Miles  was 
truthfully  prophetic  when  he  said,  "  Sooner  or  later, 
ever}'  interest  must  bow  to  the  operation  of  the 
Free  Trade  principle."     He  felt  convinced  that 
the  shipping  interest  would,  before  long,  be  de- 
prived of  Protection."     "  Of  what  use,"  enquired 
Mr.   Miles,   "are  navigation  laws,  or  reciprocity 
treaties,  if  Protection  is  to  be  taken  from  our  own 
productions?"     He  expressed  his  fears  that  the 
League  would  not  dissolve  as  it  had  promised  to 
do  if  the  Corn-Laws  were  repealed.    He  feared  that 
it  would  preserve  its  organization,  and  agitate  for 
revolutionary  changes  in  another  direction.     Sir 
W.    Heathcote    seconded  the   amendment  in  a 
speech  wherein  he  declared  that,  "  Domestic  in- 
dustry requires   Protection  in  proportion  to  the 
amount  of  maimal  labor  necessary  to  carry  it  on ; " 
and  by  force  of  this  principle  he  tried  to  make  it 
appear  that  agriculture  being  more  "  manual"  than 
manufacture  should   have  more   Protection.     In 
other  words,  that  occupation  having  the  advantage 
of  machinery  needed  no  Protection,  while  those 
that  used  no  machinery   did.      This  curious  doc- 
trine  did  not  strike  the  House  of  Commons  as 
very  profound,  and  Sir  \V.  Heathcote  sat  down 
without  having  created  any  great  sensation. 

As  the  converts  at  a  camp-meeting,  in  relating 
their  "  experience,"  all  say  the  same  thing,  so  a 
half  a  dozen  Tories  followed  Sir  W.  Heathcote, 


THE  NEW   POLICY.  255 

and  echoed  him  in  monotonous  repetition.  Then 
Lord  Sandon  startled  the  House  by  making  a 
good  sensible  argument  against  the  measure,  and 
at  the  same  time  declaring  that  he  should  vote  for 
it.  He  foreboded  great  disaster  from  it,  especially 
to  farmers  and  farm  laborers.  His  motive,  he 
said,  for  voting  for  the  measure  was  the  conviction 
that  it  was  impossible  to  maintain  Protection 
against  public  opinion.  "  We  may  grumble  and 
struggle,"  he  said,  "  but  the  question  is  decided 
against  u?."  This  position  of  Lor  i  Sandon  is  a 
curious  example  of  the  difficulty  some  Tories  had 
to  separate  themselves  from  Peel.  They  had  so 
long  looked  up  to  his  cooi  head  for  guidance  that 
the  habit  of  doing  so  had  become  a  superstition. 
They  could  not  conceive  it  possible  that  they 
themselves  might  be  right  and  Peel  wrong.  They 
had  leaned  upon  him  so  long  that  without  him 
they  felt  helpless.  Even  the  Duke  of  Wellington 
talked  in  the  House  of  Lords  very  much  as  Lord 
Sandon  did  in  the  House  of  Commons,  showing 
that  in  spite  of  what  they  called  his  "  desertion  " 
of  them,  a  large  nurarber  of  the  Tory  party  had 
ceased  to  have  any  individuality  of  their  own,  but 
had  i)ermitted  themselves  to  become  absorbed  in 
the  personality  of  Peel. 

The  chief  incident  of  the  first  night's  debate 
was  the  speech  of  Lord  John  Russell.  His  posi- 
tion was  peculiar,  for  he  had  been  turned  out  of 
])0wer  by  Peel  in  1841,  for  proposing  a  small  mod- 
ification of  the  Corn-Laws,  and  lie  was  now  mar- 


256  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

shaling  the  Whig  party  to  support  a  proposition  of 
his  rival  and  antagonist  for  their  total  repeal. 
Lord  Beaconsfield,  in  his  anxiety  to  point  suspic- 
ion at  Peel,  asserts  that  Lord  John  Russell  spoke 
in  the  tone  of  a  man  who  had  been  wronged  by 
Peel,  and  unfairly  driven  from  office;  that  his 
manner  was  complaining,  and  justly  so.  The 
speech  does  not  bear  this  interpretation.  It  is  re- 
markably lofty  and  patriotic.  True,  Lord  John 
Russell  did  criticise  some  of  the  details  of  the 
new  plan,  especially  the  three  years  reprieve,  and 
he  also  complained  that  when  he  had  endeavored  to 
introduce  similar  reforms  he  had  been  met  by  a 
party  opposition,  and  finally  driven  from  power, 
but  it  was  all  said  in  such  a  manly  way  as  to 
elicit  cheers  from  both  sides  of  the  House,  and 
even  from  Sir  Robert  Peel  himself  Lord  John 
Russell  said,  "  Considering  the  plan  of  the 
Minister  as  a  great  measure,  a  measure  that 
is  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  completely  new 
principle  with  regard  to  our  commercial  legis- 
lation, that  principle  being  neither  to  foster  one 
trade  nor  the  other,  but  to  leave  them  to  '  flourish 
or  to  fade,'  according  to  the  energies  and  skill  of 
the  people,  and  believing  that  is  the  sound  prin- 
ciple, I  am  prepared  to  give  every  support  I  can 
to  the  plan  brought  forward  by  the  right  honor- 
able gentleman."  Lord  John  Russell  placed 
patriotism  above  party,  and  the  relief  of  the  peo- 
ple before  official  jealousy  and  personal  recrimin- 
ations.    Referring  m  a  dignified  manner  to  Mr- 


THE   NEW   POLICY.  257 

Lascelles,  who  had  just  remarked  that  he  sup- 
ported the  plans  of  the  Prime  Minister  because 
he  thought  him  more  hkely  to  succeed  in  passing 
them  than  Lord  John  Russell  could,  he  said,  "It 
is  by  the  aid  of  the  Whigs,  and  by  the  conduct 
that  we  shall  pursue  that  the  measure  will  attain 
its  success."  Then  waiving  all  personal  ambition, 
and  ignoring  private  griefs,  he  generously  said, 
*'  If  the  right  honorable  gentleman  has  the  glory 
of  adopting  plans  of  commercial  freedom  which 
will  benefit  his  country,  which  will  enable  the 
poor  man  to  get  a  better  reward  for  his  labor, 
which  will  increase  the  demand  for  all  the  produc- 
tions, and  which,  after  these  questions  are  settled, 
will,  I  hope,  open  the  way  to  the  moral  improve- 
ment of  the  people  of  this  country,  hitherto  pre- 
vented by  their  want  of  adequate  means  of  com- 
fort— if  the  right  honorable  gentleman  has  the 
glory  of  carrying  a  measure  fraught  with  such 
large  and  beneficial  results,  let  ours  be  the  solid 
satisfaction  that,  out  of  office,  we  have  associated 
together  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  and  assisting 
the  triumj)h  of  the  Minister  of  the  Crown." 

It  was  important  that  the  position  of  the  Whigs 
should  be  declared  thus  early  in  the  debate,  and 
the  speech  of  Lord  John  Russell  was  a  great  dis- 
appointment to  the  Protectionist  faction  who  were 
seeking  to  obstruct  and  defeat  the  reformation. 
They  had  hoped  that  the  Whigs  would  have  found 
some  partisan  excuse  for  opposing  the  measure 
in  revenge  for  1841,  and  naturally  enougli  they 

K 


258  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

could  see  no  merit  in  the  speech.  Their  vexation 
lasted  long.  A  dozen  years  afterwards  Lord 
Beaconsfield  describing  it  said,  "  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell, who  followed  in  a  speech  which  was  not  one 
of  his  happy  efforts,  agreed  with  Lord  Sandon, 
'that  the  Minister  had  not  laid  his  grounds 
broadly  and  extensively  enough  in  point  of  time.' 
Lord  John  was  not  very  felicitous  in  point  of 
time  himself.  Embarrassed  by  his  engagement  to 
support  the  measure  of  his  rival,  little  anticipa- 
ting the  importance  and  duration  of  the  debate 
then  taking  place,  and  anxious  to  free  himself  as 
soon  as  possible  from  the  fulfilment  of  an  awk- 
ward duty,  he  wasted  his  ammunition  much  too 
soon  in  the  engagement,  spoke  inopportunely  and 
ineffectively,  and  the  future  first  Minister  of  the 
country  was  not  heard  of  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons for  three  weeks."  The  weakness  of  this 
criticism  and  the  motive  of  it  are  both  apparent. 
The  debate  on  the  second  night  is  valuable 
reading,  as  it  exposes  the  economic  error  so  firmly 
believed  in  by  the  American  Protectionists  to-day, 
and  so  tenaciously  held  by  the  English  Protection- 
ists thirty-eight  years  ago;  that  Ave  should  sell  to 
other  nations,  but  not  buy  of  them,  and  that  wise 
legislation  should  facilitate  the  exportation  of  our 
products,  and  forbid  the  importation  of  those  of 
other  countries.  The  debate  was  opened  by  Mr. 
Stafford  O'Brien,  an  English  Tory  land  owner, 
and  member  for  the  county  of  Northampton.  He 
ridiculed  what  he  called  "  the  maxims  of  political 


THE  NEW   POLICY.  25& 

economy,"  and  declared  that  they  could  not  be 
applied  to  practical  purposes.  He  dug  up  the 
ancient  "  pauper  labor  "  scare-crow,  and  exhibited 
it  again.  He  became  pathetic  over  the  sorrows  of 
the  workingman,  after  the  maudlin  fashion  pecu- 
liar to  the  rich  monopolists  of  that  day — and 
this.  He  said,  "Suppose  that  acting  upon  the 
axiom  of  buying  in  the  cheapest  market  and  sell- 
ing in  the  dearest,  he,  a  wealthy  man  in  England, 
furnished  his  house  with  paper  hangings  from 
Paris ;  suppose  that  he  traveled  in  a  continental 
carriage — that  he  purchased  all  his  earthenware  in 
Germany  ;  suppose  all  this,  when  he  looked  out  of 
the  window  of  his  gaudy  house,  or  his  foreign- 
built  carriage,  what  would  he  see?  A  vast  multi- 
tude of  unemployed,  starving  Englishmen.  And 
what  would  they  say  to  him  ?  '  We  are  poor  Eng- 
lish paper-stainers;  we  are  Birmingham  hardware- 
men;  our  trade  has  been  taken  away  from  us, 
what  are  we  to  do?"  This  kind  of  talk  still  had 
some  weight  outside,  among  ignorant  working- 
men,  whose  prejudices  against  "foreign  pauper 
labor"  could  be  easily  aroused,  but  it  was  laughed 
at  in  the  House  of  Couimoas,  as  an  old  imposter 
of  a  ghost  made  out  of  a  hollow  pumpkin;  it  was 
tiresome  twaddle  there.  Mr.  O'Brien  requested 
his  countrymen  to  starve  with  patience  so  that  he 
might  obtain  high  rents  for  his  land,  and  on  those 
terms  he  was  willing  to  promise  that  he  would 
not  buy  his  fine  carriages  in  France,  nor  liis  crock- 
ery in  Germany. 


260  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

Sir  James  Graham  followed  Mr.  O'Brien,  and 
applied  this  principle  to  his  argument,  that  no 
country  can  permanently  maintain  exportation 
without  imports  in  some  shape  or  other  to  balance 
it,  nor  can  a  nation  maintain  importations  for  any 
length  of  time,  without  exporting  something  to 
pay  for  them.  He  said,  "The  honorable  mem- 
ber for  Northamptonshire  described  a  state  of 
things  where  a  certain  person  has  the  walls  of  his 
house  covered  with  French  paper-hangings,  fur- 
nished with  articles  of  German  hardware,  and 
who  rides  in  a  Brussells  carriage,  while  workmen 
are  crowding  the  market  with  nobody  to  hire 
them.  How  does  he  think  those  carriages  are  to 
be  obtained  ?  Whatever  may  be  the  form  of  the 
transaction  by  which  they  are  obtained,  that 
transaction  of  necessity  resolves  itself  into  a  bar- 
gain. Directly  or  indirectly  there  must  be  an 
exchange  of  commodities,  and  you  must  in  the 
long  run  export  some  of  your  own  productions  to 
pay  for  what  you  have  got  from  abroad."  Sir 
James  Graham  in  replying  to  the  challenge  of 
Lord  Worsley  that  if  the  members  of  the  govern- 
ment had  changed  their  opinions  they  should 
manfully  own  it,  said,  "  I  accept  that  challenge.  I 
do  frankly  avow  my  change  of  opinion,  and,  by 
that  avowal,  I  dispose  of  all  the  speeches."  Next 
to  Peel  himself,  Sir  James  Graham  was  perhaps 
the  ablest  debater  in  the  Ministry,  and  his  speech 
on  this  occasion  was  regar'led  as  a  successful  de- 
fense of  the  government.     Speaking  as  a  landlord, 


THE   NEW   POLICY.  261 

he  said,  "  For  one,  sooner  than  it  should  he  said  of 
myself,  or  any  of  the  class  to  which  I  belong,  that 
our  object  was  to  secure  for  ourselves  an  increase 
of  rent,  and  not  to  promote  the  welfare  and  hap- 
piness of  the  great  body  of  the  community — 
sooner  than  leave  any  room  for  such  a  suspicion, 
I  should  say,  speaking  for  myself,  that  I  would 
descend  to  a  lower  estate,  and  abrogate  my  inher- 
itance." 

While  this  debate  was  going  on  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  another  was  going  on  outside.  It  was 
conducted  at  night  by  the  "  protected  "  farm  lab- 
orers of  Wiltshire.  Its  revelations  were  of  a  startling 
character,  and  the  Protectionists  both  in  Parlia- 
ment and  out  of  it  were  greatly  disturbed  by 
them.  The  Tories  were  thrown  upon  the  defens- 
ive; and  apologies  and  explanations  came  thick 
and  fast.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the  skillful 
oratory  and  logical  argument  of  Peel,  and  Gra- 
ham, and  Bright  had  so  much  effect  as  the  rude 
pathos  of  those  rustic  hinds,  who  had  been  "pro- 
tected "  to  starvation  by  a  false  and  selfish  econ- 
omic system,  the  relic  of  a  barbarous  age.  Their 
simple  statements  constituted  eloquence  of  a  very 
exciting  kind.  They  could  not  be  answered  by 
argument;  they  could  only  be  denied,  and  denial 
was  useless,  for  the  facts  were  too  plain.  Some  of 
the  speakers  were  women,  and  the  stories  they 
told  of  suffering  made  the  Protectionists  seem  the 
mere  apologists  of  poverty  and  injustice.  One 
man  said,  ''My  friends — I  be  a  laboring  man;  I 


262  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

have  a  wife  and  seven  children  in  family,  my 
wages  at  the  present  time  is  eight  shillings  a 
week."  Another  said,  "  For  the  last  fortnight  I 
have  received  only  six  shillings  a  week.  I  know 
many  men  with  four  children  who  have  only  six 
shillings  a  week.  I  expect  to  be  discharged  when 
I  get  home  for  coming  to  the  meeting.  It  be  them 
Corn-Laws — them  cursed  Corn-Laws,  that  make 
bread  dear.  I  have  been  employed  like  a  horse 
in  drawing  a  cart.  I  was  one  of  five  men  yoked 
to  the  cart."  Many  others  talked  in  the  same 
way,  but  the  speeches  of  the  women  were  more 
pathetic  and  sorrowful  than  those  of  the  men. 
One  woman  said  that  she  was  compelled  to  feed 
her  children  upon  nettles  and  weeds,  and  this, 
they  said,  is  "Protection."  This  exposure  of  the 
condition  of  the  "  protected "  English  peasantry 
was  a  powerful  weapon  in  the  hands  of  the  Free 
Traders,  and  the  Protectionists  were  not  able  to 
soften  down  the  indignation  which  it  caused 
among  the  people. 

On  the  fifth  night  of  the  debate.  Sir  Robert 
Peel  addressed  the  house.  He  spoke  for  three 
hours,  and  gave  a  full  explanation  of  the  break- 
up of  his  government  in  December,  and  his 
resumption  of  office.  He  defended  himself  from 
the  imputation  of  unfairness  to  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell, and  read  a  letter  which  he  had  sent  to  the 
Queen  on  the  8th  of  December,  two  days  after  his 
resignation,  and  when  he  expected  that  Lord  John 
Russell  would  succeed  in  forming  an  administra- 


THE   NEW   POLICY.  263 

tion,  in  which  he  had  promised  Her  Majesty  that 
he  would  support  Lord  John  Russell  in  any  meas- 
ures he  might  bring  forward  for  a  repeal  of  the 
Corn-Laws,  not  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  his 
lordship's  letter  from  Edinburgh  to  the  electors  of 
the  city  of  London.  He  then  gave  his  reasons 
for  introducing  the  measures  now  before  the 
House,  and  defended  them  both  on  principle  and 
on  the  ground  of  expediency.  Even  Lord 
Beaconsfield  admits  the  strength  of  this  important 
speech.  He  says,  "  The  speech  of  Sir  Robert 
Peel  was  one  of  his  best ;  indignant  and  vigorous, 
free  from  the  affectation  of  fairness,  and  that  too 
obvious  plausibility  in  which  of  late  years  he  had 
somewhat  luxuriantly  indulged  ;  he  threw  off  the 
apologetic  tone,  and  was  uncompromising  both  in 
his  principles  and  demeanor.  The  peroration 
was  in  the  high  League  style,  though,  of  course, 
adapted  to  the  more  refined  taste  of  the  House  of 
Commons."  This  is  a  great  concession  on  the  part 
of  Lord  Beaconsfield,  but  the  speech  deserved  it. 

Some  of  Peel's  facts  and  arguments  coming  from 
the  great  height  of  an  experienced  Prime  Mii.ister 
and  statesman  fell  with  crushing  weight  upon  the 
Protectionist  resistance,  and  absolutely  broke  it 
down.  For  instance,  he  made  this  challenge, "  Show 
me,"  he  said,  "one  relaxation,  one  removal  of  prohi- 
bition, which  has  not  contributed  to  the  advantage 
of  the  great  body  of  consumers.  I  will  go  farther. 
]  will  show  you  that  these  removals  of  prohil)!- 
tion   have  contributed  not  merely  to  tlie  general 


264  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

weal  and  advantage  of  the  consumers,  but  that 
they  are  perfectly  consistent  with  the  permanent 
benefit  and  increased  wealth  of  the  producer." 
He  then  enforced  his  challenge  by  some  start- 
ling statistics,  showing  the  increased  importation 
of  timber  under  the  reduced  tarifi',  which  increased 
supply  had  stimulated  ship-building  and  every 
trade  of  which  wood  was  the  raw  material.  A 
reduction  of  the  tariff  on  silk  and  its  materials 
had  been  followed  by  the  increased  prosperity  of 
the  silk  trade.  For  centuries  the  English  silk 
manufacturer  had  been  protected  by  a  high  tariff 
against  the  "  pauper  labor  "  of  France.  With  an 
air  of  triumphant  superiority  that  almost  shriv- 
eled up  the  Protectionists,  he  exclaimed,  "Look  at 
the  state  of  your  silk  trade  at  this  moment.  The 
French  have  long  been  accustomed  to  plume 
themselves  upon  their  silk  manufactures.  But  it 
may,  perhaps,  surprise  not  a  few  of  those  who  are 
now  listening  to  me,  to  learn  that  last  year,  with 
our  relaxed  tariff,  we  actually  exported  to  France 
more  silk  than  we  exported  to  the  whole  universe 
in  any  year  of  the  Protective  System.  And  there 
is  no  branch  of  manufactures  in  which  the  same 
improvement  is  not  observable."  Then  in  the 
self-confidence  of  a  man  who  knows  what  he  is 
talking  about,  he  turned  upon  the  angry  crowd 
behind  him,  and  said,  "  I  am  prepared  to  prove 
this,"  but  there  was  not  one  of  them  bold  enough 
to  call  for  the  evidence.  Referring  to  the  dread 
of  foreign  competition,  he  pointed  to  the  immense 


THE   NEW   POLICY.  265 

resources  of  England,  her  coal,  and  iron,  her  free- 
dom, the  skill  of  her  artisans,  the  physical  and 
mental  strength  of  her  people;  and  then  with  the 
haughty  pride  of  an  Englishman  looking  down 
upon  surrounding  nations,  and  scorning  to  believe 
that  they  were  able  to  compete  with  his  own 
countrymen  in  manufactures  or  in  anything  else, 
he  enquired,  "What  have  you  to  fear?"  Some 
day  a  triumphant  statesman  standing  in  the  Capi- 
tol at  Washington,  and  pointing  to  the  resources 
of  our  country,  a  hundred-fold  greater  than  Eng- 
land ever  had,  and  to  the  activity,  intelligence, 
and  the  in<lustrial  skill  of  our  people,  will  silence 
our  own  Protectionists  by  repeating  the  question 
of  Peel,  "  What  have  you  to  fear  ?  " 

The  debate  went  on  for  three  weeks,  and  was 
greatly  enlivened  on  the  last  night  of  it  by  a 
speech  from  Mr,  Cobden.  He  was  good  natured, 
and,  indeed,  rather  patronizing  to  the  Tories,  and 
he  assured  them  that  their  fears  of  Free  Trade 
were  foolish.  He  told  them  that  they  themselves 
had  lost  confidence  in  the  soundness  of  the  "  Pro- 
tection "  principle,  and  that  their  actions  proved  it. 
"  You  wish  for  an  appeal  to  the  country,"  he  said, 
"and  you  will  abide  by  its  decision.  If  you 
could  depend  upon  your  principles,  you  would 
not  take  such  a  course.  You  would  say  that  you 
would  not  yield  to  one  defeat  or  many,  but  you 
have  no  confidence  in  your  doctrine."  Referring 
to  the  threat  that  the  bill  should  be  defeated  in 
the  House  of  Lords,  he  said  with  great  signifi- 


266  HKTOBY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

cance,  "  Recollect  there  is  no  cotton  spinner  nor 
manufacturer  there."  Like  a  kind  father  talking 
to  a  lot  of  children,  Mr.  Cobden  lectured  the  Pro- 
tectionists ;  and  so  amiably  was  it  all  done,  that 
they  bore  it  with  good  humor,  if  not  with  pleas- 
ure. Once,  when  he  told  them  that  in  case  of  a 
new  election  they  would  lose  every  town  contain- 
ing as  many  as  25,000  inhabitants,  they  inter- 
rupted him  with  loud  cries  of  "  No,"  "  No,"  but 
he  replied  quickly,  "  I  tell  you  that  you  have  nei- 
ther Liverpool  nor  Bristol."  He  mado  much  rid- 
icule of  the  old  arguments  about  "  dependence  on 
the  foreigner,"  "land  going  out  of  cultivation," 
the  "drain  of  gold,"  etc.,  which,  he  said,  although 
knocked  in  the  head  long  ago,  had  come  out  again 
in  this  debate  as  fresh  as  ever.  "You  would 
know  better,"  said  Mr.  Cobden,  "  if  you  lived  in 
the  world,  and  not  in  a  charmed  circle,"  "  Recol- 
lect," he  continued,  "  I  want  no  triumph ;  but  I 
want  us  all  to  confer  together  to  see  if  we  cannot 
carry  out  something  better  for  our  country,  and 
when  this  great  measure  is  passed  we  will  dissolve 
the  League — but  not  till  then."  The  hopeful, 
modest,  and  sunshiny  tone  of  Cobden 's  speech 
lifted  the  debate  into  a  more  friendly  atmosphere, 
and  then  Lord  George  Bentinck  closed  it.  He  had 
lately  been  chosen  leader  of  the  Protectionist 
party,  and  for  three  hours  he  made  a  gallant 
struggle  against  a  hostile  tide;  and  when  he 
concluded  there  were  loud  calls  of  "  Divide," 
"  Divide." 


THE   NEW   POLICY.  267 

The  debate  had  lasted  for  three  weeks,  and 
more  than  a  hundred  speeches  had  been  made. 
It  was  thought  that  it  would  end  on  Friday 
night,  the  27th  of  February.  Great  crowds  of 
people  waited  in  Parliament  street  all  night  long, 
anxious  to  hear  the  result.  It  was  3  o'clock  in 
the  morning  of  Saturday,  February  28,  1846, 
when  the  debate  ended,  and  when  the  division 
was  had  there  appeared  to  be — for  the  govern- 
ment proposals,  337 ;  against  them,  240.  The  rev- 
olution was  accomplished.  The  cheers  of  the 
Free  Traders  inside  and  outside  the  House  waked 
up  London.  The  Protectionist  Parliament  of 
1841  had,  in  the  beginning  of  1846,  established 
Free  Trade  as  the  commercial  policy  of  England 
by  a  majority  of  ninety-seven  votes.  The  great 
struggle  was  ended,  and  the  industry  of  Britain 
was  free.  In  the  year  1436  the  first  law  was 
passed  restricting  the  importation  of  foreign  grain. 
It  had  been  altered  for  better  and  for  worse  many 
times  since  then,  and  now  at  the  venerable  age  of 
four  hundred  and  ten  years,  it  was  slain  on  the 
spot  were  it  was  born.  As  the  League  had  pro- 
claimed from  the  very  beginning,  it  carried  down 
with  it  the  whole  System  of  Protection.  The  sched- 
ule of  import  duties  yet  remaining  was  based  on 
the  principle  of  a  tariff  for  revenue  only. 

A  fine  illustration  of  the  bigotry  of  good,  old- 
fashioned,  protection  Toryism  was  furnished  dur- 
ing the  progress  of  this  debate  by  the  Duke 
of  Newcastle.      He  owned   a  great    nart  of  the 


268  HISTORY  OF  FREE   TRADE. 

county  of  Nottingham,  and  in  that  county  his 
will  was  law.  He  directed  who  should  be  elected 
to  Parliament,  and  who  should  be  defeated.  Now, 
it  so  happened  that  his  eldest  son,  the  Earl  of 
Lincoln,  was  member  for  South  Nottinghamshire, 
and  he  was  also  a  member  of  Sir  Robert  Peel's 
administration.  He  had  changed  his  opinions  on 
the  subject  of  Protection,  and  had  become  a  sup- 
porter of  the  Free  Trade  measures  of  the  govern- 
ment. He  had  resigned  one  post  in  the  adminis- 
tration to  accept  another,  that  of  Chief  Secretary 
for  Ireland.  The  acceptance  of  this  new  office 
vacated  his  seat  in  Parliament,  and  required  him 
to  go  before  his  constituents  for  a  re-election,  and 
before  them  he  accordingly  went.  The  Duke  of 
Newcastle,  however,  had  become  so  angry  and 
indignant  because  Lord  Lincoln  supported  Peel, 
that  he  gave  orders  that  his  son  should  be 
defeated,  and  defeated  he  was.  Mr.  Nildyard,  a 
Protectionist,  was  elected  in  his  place,  by  a  major- 
ity of  seven  hundred  votes. 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

A    TARIFF    FOR    REVENUE    ONLY. 

Passage  of  the  Bill  Tbroagh  Committee — Obstroctive 
Tactics  of  the  Protectionists — The  House  of  Lords — 
Lord  Stanley's  Speech  Against  the  Bill — The  Bill  Passes 
the  House  of  Lords — Peel's  Government  Overthrown — 
His  Eemarks  on  Quitting  Office — Lord  John  Russell 
Becomes  Prime  Minister — Continues  the  Free  Trade 
Policy — Repeals  the  Navigation  Laws — The  Wisdom 
of  the  New  Policy  Proven  by  Forty  Years  Experience — 
Growth  of  Britain  Under  the  New  System. 

The  vote  of  February  27th  was  merely  for 
going  into  committee ;  the  measures  approved 
by  it  were  not  yet  law.  Every  item  in  the  new 
tariff"  could  be  debated  and  amended  in  com- 
mittee of  the  whole ;  this  oifered  to  the  Protec- 
tionists a  chance  to  delay  the  bill,  and  they 
immediately  resolved  on  a  policy  of  obstruction. 
They  hoped,  in  a  bewildered  sort  of  way,  that  if 
they  could  only  get  time  something  might  "  turn 
up "  to  help  them ;  they  did  not  know  exactly 
what,  but  like  the  doomed  criminal  they  looked 
upon  even  a  respite  as  including  within  it  the 
prospect  of  ultimate  escape.  Lord  Beaconsfield 
confesses  this  with  a  simple  fatuity  not  excelled 
by  Mr.  Micawber  himself  In  his  "  Biography  of 
Lord  George  Bentinck,"  he  says,  "The  great 
object  whicli  Lord  George  now  j)ro])Osed  to  him- 

■^60 


270  HISTORY    OF   FREE   TRADE. 

self  was,  to  delay  the  progress  of  the  government 
measures,  so  that  they  should  not  reach  the  House 
of  Lords  before  Easter.  He  believed  that  time 
might  still  ensure  their  discomfiture.  The 
majority  of  the  27th  of  February  was  only  in 
favor  of  going  into  committee.  Before,  therefore, 
any  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the  Corn- Laws  could  be 
brought  forward  the  principle  of  every  projected 
alteration  of  the  tariff  must  individually  be 
sanctioned  by  a  particular  vote.  The  opportuni- 
ties for  resistance,  therefore,  were  considerable  and 
encouraging."  This  policy  of  delay  was  adopted, 
and,  in  fact,  it  was  not  until  May  that  the  bill 
passed  its  third  reading,  and  went  up  to  the  House 
of  Lords.  But  all  this  was  mere  formality,  after 
the  vote  of  February  27th, — the  mere  ceremonial 
of  nailing  on  the  coffin  lid,  and  preparing  the 
deceased  for  burial.  The  funeral  might  be  delayed, 
but  it  could  not  be  prevented. 

When  the  bill  went  up  to  the.  House  of  Lords, 
the  Tory  peers  made  a  fussy  pretense  of  throwing 
it  out,  but  they  were  at  last  afraid  to  do  so.  They 
had  only  one  man  among  them  of  really  great 
ability.  That  was  Lord  Stanley,  who  had  lately 
resigned  his  place  in  the  Cabinet,  rather  than  con- 
sent to  the  repeal  of  the  Corn-Laws.  The  hopes 
of  monopoly  centered  on  him,  and  every  Protec- 
tionist in  England  was  yelping  behind  him,  "  On, 
Stanley,  on."  He  made  a  great  speech,  which  for 
a  moment  infused  a  little  courage  into  his  party. 
He  opposed  Free  Trade  with  the  same  vehemence 


A  TARIFF  FOR  REVENUE  ONLY.      271 

that  his  father  and  his  grandfather  had  opposed 
railroads,  and  for  the  same  antiquated  reasons. 
The  old  man  used  to  employ  a  lot  of  people 
whose  duty  it  was  to  shoot  any  railroad  surveyor 
who  came  upon  his  lands.  Lord  Stanley  paraded 
over  and  over  again  the  ancient  heresies  of  the 
Protective  System,  as  if  the  steam  engine  and  the 
printing  press  had  not  yet  come.  Shut  out  from 
the  light  of  the  nineteenth  century,  in  the  gloomy 
grandeur  of  the  House  of  Lords,  his  speech  might 
have  been  the  speech  of  his  ancestor  fresh  from 
the  fight  of  Bosworth  field. 

On  the  same  day  that  the  bill  passed  its  third 
reading  in  the  House  of  Commons,  the  Duke  of 
Buccleugh,  on  the  part  of  the  government,  moved 
its  first  reading  in  the  House  of  Lords,  which  was 
instantly  opposed  by  the  Duke  of  Richmond  who 
entered  his  protest  against  the  measure  as  "  an 
unauthorized  abandonment  of  the  great  principle 
of  Protection  to  British  industry."  Lord  Mont- 
eagle  replied  to  the  Duke  of  Richmond,  and  said 
that  "  the  doctrines  of  Free  Trade  recognized  a 
clear  distinction  between  protective  duties,  and  a 
tariff  for  revenue  only."  Earl  Grey  ujade  the 
ablest  speech  on  the  Free  Trade  side.  He  had 
lately  been  transferred  to  the  House  of  Lords  by 
the  death  of  his  father.  As  Lord  Hovvick,  he  hud 
in  the  House  of  Commons  proved  himself,  next 
to  Mr.  Villiers,  the  most  j)hilosopliical  and  con- 
sistent Free  Trader  among  all  the  members  of  the 
aristocracy  who  took  that  side;  and  in  his  new 


272  HISTOBY   OF  FREE   TRADE. 

position  he  was  pronounced  and  clear  as  he  was 
in  the  Lower  House  of  Parliament ;  he  said,  that 
"  he  could  only  accept  the  scheme  of  the  govern- 
ment as  an  instalment,  not  a  perfect  measure  of 
Free  Trade.  He  was  still,  as  he  had  ever  been, 
against  all  duties  for  Protection;  and  he  could 
answer  for  the  great  body  of  the  manufacturers 
that  they  desired  not  a  particle  of  Protection  for 
themselves  when  they  asked  for  the  removal  of 
all  Protective  and  differential  duties  on  every 
article  of  consumption."  He  was  followed  by 
Lord  Ashburton,  one  of  the  few  peers  who 
belonged  to  the  commercial  classes,  and  he  in- 
sisted on  preserving  the  plan  of  "reciprocity." 
"The  Germans,"  he  said,  "had  their  Zollverein, 
and  France  her  restrictive  system,  and  England 
required  a  similar  system  to  counteract  them." 
Replying  to  Earl  Grey,  he  said,  that  he  did  not 
believe  that  the  manufacturers  would  redeem  the 
promise  that  had  been  made  in  their  name.  Lord 
Ashburton  showed  a  very  good  knowledge  of 
human  nature  when  he  said  that  "he  believed 
the  magnanimity  of  the  manufacturers  to  be  of  the 
kind  that  would  like  Free  Trade  for  every  com- 
modity except  that  which  they  themselves 
supplied." 

Lord  Stanley  reserved  his  great  speech  for  the 
debate  on  the  second  reading  of  the  bill.  It  was 
strong  in  oratory,  but  weak  in  argument,  and  its 
ignorant  denial  of  the  famine  impending  over 
Ireland  must  forever  keep   Lord  Stanley    from 


A  TARIFF  FOR  REVENUE  ONLY.       278 

taking  rank  among  the  great  statesmen  of  England. 
He  spoke  of  the  coming  famine  as  "  an  utterly 
baseless  vision  haunting  the  imagination  of  the 
government,"  and  he  declared  that  "  no  country 
of  eminence  had  ever  ventured  upon  the  rash 
experiment  of  leaving  corn  unprotected  by  re- 
strictive duties  on  foreign  importation."  He  said 
that  reducing  the  price  of  wheat  in  order  to 
relieve  a  scarcity  in  potatos  would  produce  no 
more  effect  than  a  law  to  reduce  the  price  of  pine- 
apples. He  also  denounced  the  League  and  said 
that  the  government  had  mistaken  the  brawling 
torrent  of  agitation  for  the  current  of  public 
opinion.  The  Anti-Corn-Law  League  had  obtained 
a  victory  over  the  ministers  of  the  Crown,  and 
the  ministers  of  the  Crown  had  obtained  a  victory 
over  their  own  political  supporters,  and  he  might 
also  say  over  the  independence  of  Parliament 
itself  Explaining  his  conduct  in  the  Cabinet,  he 
admitted  that  he  had  agreed  in  November  to  a 
temporary  suspension  of  the  duties  on  the  impor- 
tation of  foreign  corn,  provided  it  were  merely 
temporary.  This  declaration  was  inconsistent 
with  tlio  opinion  just  expressed  that  cheap  wheat 
could  no  more  supply  the  failure  of  potatos  than 
cheap  pine-apples  could.  It  was  unstatesman- 
like  in  this,  that  he  was  willing  to  admit  foreign 
grain  to  stay  the  hunger  of  the  people,  but  only 
for  a  time,  and  on  the  express  condition  that  i  s 
soon  as  their  hunger  was  relieved  the  protective 
tariff  should  be  re-imposed,  in  order  to  make 
them  hungry  again. 


274  HISTORY   OF  FREE   TRADE. 

Lord  Stanley  then  claimed  that  the  large  exports 
of  British  manufactures  as  shown  by  the  returns 
was  due  to  the  Protective  System,  and  proved  its 
value ;  but  thij  was  merely  the  old  sophistry  that 
two  conditions  being  proven  to  exist,  one  must 
be  the  cause  of  the  other.  Large  exports  of 
manufactured  goods  being  possible  under  the 
Protective  System,  Lord  Stanley  pretended  that 
they  would  be  impossible  without  it.  This 
assumption  is  adopted  by  the  American  Protec- 
tionists now.  They  claim  all  the  prosperity  of 
the  country  as  due  to  the  Protective  System^ 
totally  ignoring  the  ten  thousand  means  of  wealth 
that  compel  prosperity  in  spite  of  the  tax  laid  upon 
our  internal  resources  by  the  Protective  policy. 
The  fallacy  of  Lord  Stanley's  argument  was 
apparent  in  the  fact  that  every  reduction  of  tariff 
duties  had  been  followed  by  a  larger  export  trade, 
and  it  ignored  the  probability  that  expoits  would 
be  still  more  greatly  multiplied  should  Protection 
be  abandoned  altogether.  That  this  probability 
was  well  founded  was  subsequently  demonstrated 
by  the  test  of  actual  experiment.  Lord  Stanley 
was  afterwards  twice  Prime  Minister  of  England, 
but  this  speech  proves  that  he  was  deficient  in 
that  broad  wisdom  and  penetrating  foresight  so 
essential  to  the  character  of  a  statesman. 

At  last  he  appealed  to  the  selfish  landlord 
feeling,  and  warned  the  House  of  Loids  that 
should  the  Corn-Laws  be  repealed,  their  wealth 
and  influence,  and  standing  in  the  country  would 


A  TARIFF  FOR  REVENUE  ONLY.      275 

be  gone.  He  said, '  Whatever  may  be  the  diflS- 
culties  of  reconciling  the  action  of  our  mixed 
constitution — of  keeping  the  balance  even  between 
a  proud  aristocracy  and  a  reformed  House  of 
Commons — depend  upon  it  those  difficulties  will 
not  be  less  if,  instead  of  a  proud  aristocracy  you 
substitute  a  pauper  aristocracy."  In  all  this  there 
was  a  patrician  insolence  absolutely  sublime. 
Here  was  an  "  order  "  of  professed  idlers,  who  by 
conquest,  confiscation,  and  all  manner  of  injustice, 
had  possessed  themselves  of  the  land,  claiming 
special  privileges  as, the  reward  of  usurpation, 
insisting  that  they  formed  a  superior  caste  whose 
prerogative  it  was  to  live  in  luxury  on  the  toil  of 
others,  and  whose  vested  right  it  was  to  make  the 
food  of  the  people  dear  in  order  to  increase  the 
wrongful  rent  of  lands  to  which  they  had  no  title 
whatever  but  the  edge  of  a  sword.  It  never 
occurred  to  Lord  Stanley  and  the  rest  of  the 
"  noble  lords  "  that  should  their  unjust  privileges 
be  taken  away  from  them,  they  need  not  become 
paupers,  ])ecause  the  same  opportunities  of  earn- 
ing a  living  were  open  to  them  that  other  people 
had.  On  the  contrary  the  mere  suggestion  of 
such  a  thing  they  resented  as  a  wrong,  and  Lord 
Stanley  had  the  daring  to  say  that  "If  you  reduce 
the  landed  aristocracy  in  the  scale  of  society  you 
will  inflict  an  irretrievable  and  irreparable  injury 
upon  the  country." 

It  must  ever  be  a  blot  not  only  upon  the  states- 
manship   of     Lord     Stanley,    but    also    on    his 


276  HISTORY   OF  FREE  TRADE. 

patriotism  that  he  advocated  the  unjust  system  of 
protection  from  sordid  and  selfish  motives.  No 
glamour  of  Norman  chivalry  can  hide  the  greedy 
character  of  his  opposition  to  commercial  reform 
and  the  repeal  of  the  Corn-Laws.  The  evidence 
against  him  is  irresistible.  His  father  owned 
47,000  acres  of  land  in  Lancashire,  and  9,000  in 
Chester,  740  acres  in  Limerick,  and  6,500  in 
Tipperary,  with  some  smaller  tracts  in  other 
counties,  and  he  thought  that  high  lents  were  put 
in  jeopardy  by  the  proposal  to  repeal  the  Corn- 
Laws.  The  result  of  the  repeal  curiously  proves 
how  unfounded  were  all  his  forebodings.  Those 
natural  partners,  Free  Trade  and  railroads,  which 
the  Stanleys  had  so  bitterly  opposed,  instead  of 
bringing  them  to  poverty  had  a  contrary  effect 
upon  their  fortunes.  Let  us  see  how  near  they 
came  to  making  a  "  pauper  aristocracy  "  of  them. 
Free  Trade  and  railroads  gave  such  a  stimulus  to 
the  growth  of  Liverpool  and  Manchester  that  the 
value  of  their  lands  in  Lancashire  and  Cheshire 
was  multiplied  fourfold.  Lord  Stanley  inherited 
those  vast  possessions  and  transmitted  them  to  his 
son,  the  present  Earl  of  Derby.  His  income  from 
those  lands  according  to  the  new  Domesday  book 
is,  for  the  lands  in  Cheshire  $32,000,  and  for  the 
lands  in  Lancashire  $780,000  a  year.  And  yet  if 
Lord  Stanley  and  his  father  could  have  had  their 
way,  England  would  have  had  neither  railroads 
nor  Free  Trade,  and  Liverpool  would  not  have 
one-fourth  its  present  wealth,  prosperity,  and 
population. 


A  TARIFF  FOR  REVENUE  ONLY.      277 

Lord  Brougham  replied  to  Lord  Stanley  in  a 
vigorous  speech  in  which  he  paid  a  fine  tribute  to 
the  patriotic  self-sacrifice  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  who, 
he  said,  "  had  given  up  what  to  an  ambitious  man 
was  much — the  main  security  of  his  power — he 
had  surrendered  what  to  a  calculating  man  was 
much — his  influence  and  authority  with  his 
party — and  he  had  given  up  what  to  an  amiable 
man  was  much,  viz.,  private  friendship  and  party 
conversation.  All  these  sacrifices  he  had  made 
voluntarily  and  with  his  eyes  open,  in  order  to 
discharge  what  he  deemed  a  great  public  duty.'* 
After  this  a  couple  of  nights  were  spent  in  rather 
feeble  debate,  and  on  a  division  the  second  reading 
was  carried  by  211  to  164. 

The  last  squeak  for  Protection  came  from  the 
Duke  of  Richmond,  who  presented  a  petition 
from  some  ribbon-makers  praying  that  their  con- 
temptible monopoly  might  be  spared  from  the 
general  wreck.  Once  more  Richmond  and  Buck- 
ingham called  upon  their  lordships  not  to  be 
afraid  of  the  League,  but  the  fact  was  that  they 
were  afraid  of  it.  They  feared  that  if  they  threw 
out  the  bill,  and  thereby  compelled  a  dissolution 
of  Parliament,  the  excitement  of  the  people  would 
add  such  power  to  the  League,  that  in  its  rage  it 
might  sweep  away  not  only  the  Corn-Laws,  but 
the  House  of  Lords  itself.  They  therefore  allowed 
the  bill  to  pass,  and  they  were  so  disheartened 
that  on  the  25th  of  June  the  bill  went  through  on 
its  third  reading  without  even  a  division. 


278  HISTORY   OF  FREE  TRAHE. 

That  same  night  the  government  of  Sir  Robert 
Peel  was  overthrown.  On  the  Irish  Coercion  Bill, 
the  irreconcilable  Tory  faction  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  led  on  by  Lord  George  Bentinck  and 
Mr.  Disraeli,  took  revenge  upon  the  Minister  for 
his  Free  Trade  policy  by  voting  with  the  opposi- 
tion, and  on  a  division  the  administration  was 
defeated  by  292  to  219.  Sir  Robert  Peel  imme- 
diately resigned.  On  Monday  night  he  announced 
his  resignation  in  a  speech  of  much  good  temper, 
pathos,  and  dignity.  In  the  very  hour  of  his  fall 
his  political  sky  was  at  its  brightest.  On  that  very 
day  came  an  official  dispatch  from  America 
announcing  that  the  United  States  government 
had  settled  the  Oregon  question  on  the  terms  pro- 
posed by  him,  and  thus  had  dissipated  the  war 
cloud  which  for  some  time  had  darkened  the 
relations  between  the  two  countries.  He  said  that 
he  would  offer  no  factious  opposition  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  those  who  had  thrown  him  out  of 
office.  He  promised  to  support  Lord  John 
Russell's  administration  in  carrying  out  the  new 
commercial  policy.  He  said,  "  If  that  be  the 
policy  which  will  be  pursued,  I  shall  feel  it  my 
duty  to  give  to  his  government  my  cordial  sup- 
port. I  presume  that  Her  Majesty's  government 
will  adopt  that  policy — and  that  if  other 
countries  choose  to  buy  in  the  dearest  market,  it 
■will  be  no  discouragement  to  them  to  permit  us  to 
buy  in  the  cheapest."  He  then  advised  Lord  John 
Hussellto  abandon  the  "  treaty  "  and  "  reciprocity  " 


A  TARIFF  FOR  REVENUE  ONLY.      279 

system  in  his  foreign  commercial  policy.  "  I 
trust,"  he  said,  "that  the  new  government  will 
not  resume  the  policy  which  they  and  we  have 
found  so  inconvenient,  namely,  haggling  with 
foreign  countries,  instead  of  taking  that  inde- 
pendent course  which  we  believe  to  be  conducive 
to  our  own  interests. 

Of  course  much  of  his  speech  was  a  review  of 
his  Free  Trade  policy,  and  to  the  leader  of  the 
Free  Trade  movement  he  paid  this  magnanimous 
tribute.  He  said,  "  The  name  which  ought  to  be 
associated  with  the  success  of  the  Free  Trade 
measures,  is  not  the  name  of  the  noble  Lord  the 
member  for  London,  nor  is  it  my  name.  It  is  the 
name  of  a  man,  who,  acting  as  I  believe  from  dis- 
interested motives,  has,  with  untiring  energy,  by 
appeals  to  reason,  enforced  their  necessity  with  ah 
eloquence  the  more  to  be  admired  because  it  Wiis 
unaffected  and  unadorned ; — the  name  which 
ought  to  be  associated  with  these  measures  is 
the  name  of  Richard  Cobden."  This  lifted  the 
Free  Traders  right  out  of  their  seats,  and  the 
cheering  was  loud  and  long.  Many  Tories  joined 
in  it,  for  everybody  liked  Cobden.  At  last  in  the 
midst  of  deep  silence,  he  said  : 

"  Sir,  I  shall  leave  office,  I  fear,  with  a  name 
severely  censured  l^y  many  honorable  gentlemen, 
who,  on  public  principle,  deeply  regret  the  sever- 
ance of  party  ties ;  I  shall  surrender  power 
severely  censured,  I  fear  again,  by  many  honor- 
able gentlemen,  who,  from  no  interested  motive^ 


280  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

have  adhered  to  the  principle  of  Protection  as  im- 
portant to  the  welfare  and  interests  of  the  country ; 
I  shall  leave  a  name  execrated  by  eve^-y  monopo- 
list, who,  from  less  honorable  motives,  maintains 
Protection  for  his  own  individual  benefit ;  but  it 
may  be  that  I  shall  leave  a  name  sometimes 
remembered  with  expressions  of  good  will  in  those 
places  which  are  the  abode  of  men  whose  lot  it  is 
to  labor,  and  to  earn  their  daily  bread  by  the 
sweat  of  their  brow — a  name  remembered  with 
expressions  of  good  will,  when  they  shall  recreate 
their  exhausted  strength  with  abundant  and  un- 
taxed food,  the  sweeter  because  it  is  no  longer 
leavened  by  a  sense  of  injustice." 

As  he  took  his  seat  nearly  the  whole  House  rose, 
and  cheered  him  for  several  minutes ;  only  the 
sulky  Protectionist  faction  sat  silent.  Since  the 
time  of  Wolsey  no  Prime  Minister  of  England 
had  fallen  with  greater  dignity.  When  the  cheer- 
ing had  subsided  he  again  rose,  and  moved  that 
the  House  adjourn  until  Friday,  to  give  Lord 
John  Russell  time  to  form  the  new  administra- 
tion. Then  taking  the  arm  of  a  friend  he  left  the 
House.  In  order  to  avoid  the  vast  crowds  in  the 
streets  he  left  by  the  side  door  that  led  into  West- 
minster Hall,  and  tried  to  escape  by  that  way, 
but  the  crowd  heard  of  it,  and  headed  him  off. 
Hundreds  of  men  formed  a  circle  around  him, 
and  with  rude  but  respectful  courtesy,  they  escorted 
him  to  his  home.  Never  in  the  history  of  Eng- 
land was  the  fall  of  a  minister  so  like  a  triumph. 


A  TARIFF  FOR  REVENUE  ONLY.      281 

That  Sir  Robert  Peel  regarded  the  downfall  of 
his  ministry  as  affording  him  a  grateful  relief 
from  the  cares  of  office,  is  shown  by  the  following 
letter  to  his  friend,  Lord  Hardinge,  Governor-Gen- 
eral of  India,  written  immediately  after  his 
resignation : 

Dbayton  Mange,  July  4, 1846. 
My  Dear  Hardinge: 

You  will  see  that  we  are  out — defeated  by  a  combination 
of  Whigs  and  Protectionists.  A  much  less  emphatic  hint 
would  have  sufficed  for  me.  I  would  not  have  held  office 
by  sufferance  for  a  week. 

Were  I  to  write  a  quire  of  paper  I  could  not  recount  to 
you  what  has  passed  with  half  so  much  accuracy  and  detail 
as  the  public  papers  will  recount  it.  There  are  no  secrets. 
We  have  fallen  in  the  face  of  day,  and  with  our  front  to 
our  enemies. 

There  is  nothing  I  would  not  have  done  to  ensure  the 
carrying  of  the  measures  I  had  proposed  this  session  ;  but 
the  moment  their  success  was  ensured,  and  I  had  the  satis- 
faction of  seeing  two  drowsy  old  Masters  in  Chancery 
mumble  out  at  the  table  of  the  House  of  Commons,  that 
the  Lords  had  passed  the  Com  and  Customs  bills  I  was 
satisfied. 

Two  hours  after  this,  intelligence  was  brought  that  we 
were  ejected  from  power;  and  by  another  coincidence  as 
marvellous,  on  the  day  on  which  I  had  to  announce  in  the 
House  of  Commons  the  dissolution  of  the  government,  the 
news  arrived  that  we  hud  settled  the  Oregon  question,  and 
that  our  proposals  had  been  accepted  by  the  United  States 
witliout  the  alteration  of  a  word. 

Lad^'  Peel  and  I  are  quite  alone  here — in  the  loveliest 
weather — feasting  on  solitude  and  repose,  and  I  have  every 
disposition  to  forgive  my  enemies  for  having  conferred 
upon  me  the  blessing  of  the  loss  of  power. 

Most  truly  and  affectionately  yours, 

KoBEKT  Peel. 


282  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

This  history  ends  here.  Although  the  applica- 
tion of  the  new  commercial  system  to  all  the 
conditions  of  the  empire ;  to  its  agricultural,  man- 
ufacturing, mining,  colonial,  shipping,  and  other 
interests,  was  the  work  of  a  series  of  years  and 
many  acts  of  legislation,  yet  the  struggle  to  estab- 
lish the  Free  Trade  principle  as  the  policy  of 
England  ended  with  the  triumph  of  Sir  Robert 
Peel's  measures  in  1846.  The  repeal  of  protection 
to  shipping,  known  as  the  "  Navigation  Laws," 
did  not  take  efifect  until  1850,  and  it  was  not  until 
some  years  later,  that  all  traces  of  the  Protective 
System  were  eliminated  from  the  revenue  policy 
of  England,  and  the  tariff  on  imports  made  for 
purposes  of  revenue  only.  The  protective  duty 
on  sugar  lingered  along  for  some  time  on  the  plea 
of  discouraging  slavery,  and  encouraging  the  free 
labor  of  the  British  West  Indies.  The  duty  on 
timber  survived  for  awhile  on  the  theory  that  in 
return  for  the  allegiance  and  trade  of  the  colony 
of  Canada,  the  Canadian  forests  ought  to  be  pro- 
tected against  the  "  pauper  forests  "  of  the  United 
States,  while  the  Navigation  Laws  resisted  reform 
because  Adam  Smith  had  said  that  they  were  an 
exception  to  the  Free  Trade  theory,  for  they 
developed  a  mercantile  marine  from  which  native 
sailors  could  always  be  obtained  to  man  the  royal 
navy  in  time  of  war.  The  Protectionists,  of  course, 
offered  a  mechanical  resistence  to  the  removal  of 
these  restrictions,  and  they  declared  that  the  repeal 
of  the  Navigation  Laws  was  the  death  knell  of 


A  TARIFF  FOB  REVENUE  ONLY.       283 

England,  the  transferring  of  her  ship-building  in- 
dustry to  the  United  States,  the  disappearance  of 
her  flag  from  the  ocean,  the  decay  of  her  fighting 
power,  and  the  end  of  her  naval  superiority.  These 
arguments  were  strong,  and  the  Protectionist  fore- 
bodings had  much  weight;  so  much  weight, 
indeed,  that  Lord  John  Russell's  bill  for  the  repeal 
of  the  Navigation  Laws  passed  its  second  reading 
in  the  House  of  Commons  by  a  meagre  majority 
of  only  fifty-six.  Still,  it  was  felt  that  the  Free 
Trade  experiment  having  been  entered  upon,  and 
tiie  principle  of  it  solemnly  sanctioned,  all  protec- 
tion exceptions  to  it  were  illogical  and  incon- 
sistent ;  and  under  the  pressure  of  this  reasoning, 
all  commercial  restrictions  of  every  kind  were 
finally  swept  away. 

As  soon  as  England  was  freed  from  the  incum- 
brances of  what  is  improperly  called  "  Protection," 
she  bounded  forward  to  a  prosperity  greater  than 
she  had  ever  known  before.  The  object  of  this 
history  has  been  to  avoid  statistics  as  much  as 
possible,  for  they  are  dry  reading ;  but  a  few  argu- 
mentative statistics  may  not  be  out  of  place.  In 
18-iO  the  foreign  commerce  of  the  United  King- 
dom, exports  and  imports,  not  including  bullion 
and  sj)ecie,  amounted  to  6(35  millions  of  dollars ; 
in  1880  it  was  3,485  millions.  Within  those 
figures  may  be  included  all  other  statistics  of 
every  kind.  A  few  more  details,  however,  will 
not  tire  the  reader,  and   will  be  found  valuable. 

In   1840  the  imports  into   Britain  amounted  in 

s 


284  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE, 

value  to  310  millions  of  dollars,  in  1880  they 
amounted  to  2,055  millions.  In  1840  the  exports 
from  Britain,  of  British  produce,  amounted  to  255 
millions  of  dollars,  in  1880  they  amounted  to 
1,115  millions.  Fractions  are  excluded  here,  and 
a  pound  is  called  five  dollars.  The  foreign  and 
colonial  prbduce  exported  from  Britain  in  1840 
amounted  to  50  millions  of  dollars,  in  1880  it 
amounted  to  315  millions. 

The  alcove  figures  show  a  wonderful  increase  in 
the  wealth  and  material  prosperity  of  the  country, 
a  growth  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  increase  in 
the  population,  but  they  do  not  show  how  that 
increased  prosperity  was  distributed  among  the 
people.  Nor  is  it  necessary  that  they  should,  for 
the  laws  that  govern,  or  ought  to  govern,  the  dis- 
tribution of  wealth  among  those  who  have  pro- 
duced it,  belong  to  another  branch  of  political 
science,  and  need  not  be  discussed  here.  We  are 
not  without  assistance,  however,  in  determining 
this  question.  The  statistics  of  average  annual 
consumption  of  the  principal  imported  and  excise- 
able  articles  per  head,  for  the  total  population  of 
the  United  Kingdom,  from  1840  to  1880,  show  the 
most  surprising  and  beneficent  results  of  the 
Free  Trade  policy.  It  may  be  stated  in  one  sen- 
tence that  in  1840  the  working  people  of  England, 
Ireland,  and  Scotland  were  always  hungry.  This, 
of  course,  is  not  literally  true,  but  it  is  true  enough. 
In  1840  the  hunger  had  not  entirely  ceased,  but  it 
was  the  exception,  not  the  rule.     In  1840  there 


A  TARIFF  FOB  REVENUE  ONLY.      285 

■was  imported  into  Britain  of  corn,  wheat,  and 
wheat  flour,  42  lbs.  per  head,  for  all  the  popula- 
tion ;  in  1880  the  quantity  was  210  lbs.  per  head. 
In  18-40  the  quantity  of  butter  imported  was  1  lb. 
per  head ;  in  1880  it  was  7  lbs.  Of  cheese  1  lb.  in 
1840,  5  lbs.  in  1880;  of  bacon  and  hams  one-tenth 
of  a  pound  in  1840,  15  lbs.  and  nine- tenths  in 
1880;  of  potatos  one  one-hundreth  of  a  pound  in 
1840,  3U  lbs.  in  1880.  It  may  be  said  that  this 
table  is  fallacious  because  it  only  shows  the  in- 
crease to  the  people  from  importations,  but  does 
not  show  the  loss  they  have  sustained  from 
ilecreased  home  production  resulting  from  the 
repeal  of  the  Corn-Laws  ;  but  the  reply  to  that  is 
that  there  has  not  been  any  decrease,  for  as  large 
a  quantity  of  those  articles  is  raised  in  England 
now  as  was  raised  then,  so  that  the  people  have 
all  the  home  production  for  their  use  and  comfort, 
and  this  enormous  importation  also. 

It  may  be  objected  again  that  the  figures  only 
show  the  gross  quantity  of  those  articles  imported, 
and  that  if  equally  divided,  it  would  be  that  much 
per  head ;  but  that  in  fact  it  may  be  all  enjoyed 
by  the  ricli,  and  none  by  the  laboring  people. 
This  argument  niiglit  apply  to  some  articles,  but 
not  to  bread  and  bacon.  The  consumption  of 
those  articles  by  rich  people  always  remains 
about  the  same,  but  a  great  increase  in  their  con- 
sumption is  absolute  proof  that  the  poor  and  not 
the  rich  are  better  fed.  But  we  have  another  test, 
and  a  fair  one.     In  1840  tliere  was  imported  into 


286  HISTORY   OF   FREE   TRADE. 

the  United  Kingdom  one-quarter  of  a  gallon  of 
wine  per  head  for  all  the  population  ;  in  1880  it 
was  less  than  half  a  gallon  per  head.  Wine  is  the 
luxury  of  the  rich,  and  these  figures  all  show  that 
the  increased  consumption  of  bread  and  meat  was 
by  the  people  at  large.  Another  fair  test,  which 
will  apply  to  both  the  objections  above  referred  to, 
is  famished  by  tea  and  sugar.  These  are  not 
raised  in  England,  and  of  course,  all  that  was  used 
then  in  1840  was  imported,  the  same  as  that  used 
in  1880.  The  returns  prove  that  in  1840  there 
was  imported  into  the  United  Kingdom  li  lbs.  of 
tea,  per  head  for  all  the  population,  while  in  1880 
the  quantity  amounted  to  4 2  lbs.  per  head.  Of 
raw  sugar  the  quantity  imported  in  1840  was  15i 
lbs.  per  head,  in  1880  it  was  54 i  lbs.  Of  refined 
sugar  none  was  imported  in  1840,  in  1880  the  im- 
portation was  9  J  lbs.  per  head. 

Between  1840  and  1880  the  wages  of  the  work- 
ing people  of  England  largely  increased,  but  it  is 
not  necessary  to  mention  that,  because  the  in- 
creased consumption  of  food  shown  by  the  above 
figures  prove  that  the  people  must  have  had  more 
wages  to  buy  those  comforts  with,  or  they  could 
not  have  been  imported  at  all.  They  prove  that 
the  Free  Trade  policy  has  given  to  the  people  of 
England  more  to  eat,  more  to  wear,  and  better 
houses  to  live  in.  It  has  given  them  higher  wages 
with  less  hours  of  labor.  It  has  given  them  more 
holidays,  more  books,  and  more  enjoyments,  and 
their  moral  advancement  has  grown  with  their 


>.  TARIFF  FOR  REVENUE  ONLY.      287 

material  prosperity.  The  man  who  sees  the 
EngHsh  nbw,  and  remembers  the  England  of  1846, 
can  scarcely  recognise  the  people,  so  great  has 
been  the  improvement  in  one  generation. 

A  word  or  two  about  shipping,  because  the 
United  States  tenaciously  clings  to  the  Navigation 
Laws  borrowed  from  England,  and  which  the  peo- 
ple of  that  country  unanimously  believed  for  cen- 
turies were  absolutely  necessary  to  establish  and 
maintain  her  ship-building  industry  at  home,  and 
her  mercantile  interests  abroad,  without  which 
she  could  not  have  a  nursery  of  sailors  to  man 
the  royal  fleet  in  time  of  danger.  In  the  debate 
of  1849,  on  the  bill  for  the  amendment  of  the 
Navigation  Laws,  English  statesmen  had  got  no 
further  along  in  their  political  education  than  to 
talk  like  this.  Mr.  Drumniond  looked  upon  the 
measure  as  one  of  a  series,  "  the  end  and  intention 
of  which  was  to  discharge  British,  in  order  to  give 
employment  to  foreign  workmen."  Mr.  Bankes 
agreed  with  Mr.  Drummond  that  the  whole 
scheme  was  part  of  a  policy  "  for  the  depression 
i){  the  British  laborer."  Mr,  Hildyard  said  that 
the  effect  of  it  would  be  "to  draw  capital  from 
P^ngland,  and  make  it  dependent  on  foreign  coun- 
tries for  its  shipj)ing."  Mr.  Thompson  said  that 
*  the  United  States  could  not,  even  if  so  disposed, 
give  anything  to  us  in  comparison  to  the  great 
advantages  it  was  now  proposed  to  surrender  to 
them.  America,  from  her  geographical  position 
possessed   many   advnntages   over   us.     She   had 


288  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

Free  Trade  with  China;  and  the  Navigation  Laws 
destroyed,  American  goods  would  displace  British 
manufactures  in  that  market.  Mr.  Robinson  said 
that  without  Protection  "  it  was  impossible  for  the 
British  shipbuilder  to  compete  with  the  foreigner. 
The  present  tonnage  of  the  United  States  was  now 
nearly  equal  to  that  of  England,  and  the  differ- 
ence would  soon  dwindle  away  if  the  Navigation 
Laws  were  repealed."  The  Marquis  of  Granby 
said  that  "  our  naval  supremacy  depends  upon 
the  maintenance  of  the  Navigation  Laws."  On 
the  final  passage  of  the  bill  Mr.  Drummond  made 
another  attack  upon  it,  and  declared  that  it  came 
from  the  "  Satanic  school  of  politics."  Let  us  see 
how  nearly  the  forebodings  of  those  gentlemen 
came  to  pass.  In  1849,  the  number  of  British 
sailing  vessels  engaged  in  the  home  and  foreign 
trade  was  17,807,  with  a  tonnage  of  2,988,021  tons. 
In  1880,  the  number  of  sailing  vessels  was  16,183, 
with  a  tonnage  of  3,750,442  teas.  In  1849,  the 
number  of  British  steamers  engaged  in  the  home 
and  foreign  trade  (not  including  river  steamers), 
was  414,  with  a  tonnage  of  108,321  tons.  In  1880, 
the  number  of  British  steamers  engaged  in  the 
home  and  foreign  trade  (not  including  river 
steamers),  was  3,789,  with  a  tonnage  amounting 
to  2,594,135.  In  1849,  the  number  of  sailors  em- 
ployed on  those  vessels  (not  including  masters), 
was  152,611.  In  1880,  the  number  was  192,972. 
In  1840,  when  the  Navigation  Laws  for  the  pro- 
tection of  British  shipping  were  in  full  force,  the 


A  TARIFF  FOR  REVENUE  ONLY.       289 

excess  of  British  tonnage  over  the  foreign  tonnage 
entering  the  ports  of  the  United  Kingdom  was 
3,541,303  tons.  In  1880,  the  excess  was  23,961,905 
tons'.  In  1840,  the  total  tonnage  of  all  the  vessels 
entering  and  clearing  at  the  ports  of  the  United 
Kingdom  was,  British,  6,940,485  tons ;  foreign, 
2,949,182  tons.  In  1880,  it  was  as  follows :  British, 
41,348,^84  tons;  foreign,  17,387,079  tons. 

On  the  impartial  Protectionist  seeking  to  know 
the  truth,  those  facts  and  figures  may  have  some 
weight;  on  the  selfish  Protectionist,  interested  in 
the  preservation  of  monopoly,  they  will  make  no 
impression.  On  him  reason,  argument,  facts  and 
figures  are  all  lost.  To  him  the  instructive  num- 
bers just  given  are  unsubstantial  and  unreal,  a 
vagary  of  Free  Trade,  a  theory  and  a  delusion. 
To  him  a  barn,  or  a  ship,  or  a  grain  elevator  is 
nothing  but  a  cloud,  and  "  very  like  a  whale;  "  to 
him  the  demonstrations  of  geometry  are  only  the 
fanatical  theories  of  Euclid.  He  is  outside  the 
courts  of  reason. 

Every  Protectionist  argument  is  entitled  to 
respectful  treatment,  except  one — that  which  con- 
sists in  a  sneer  at  England  for  her  Free  Trade  pol- 
icy, a  ])olicy  which  has  been  so  largely  beneficial, 
not  only  to  tlie  people  of  Great  Britain,  but  to  the 
people  of  America.  It  is  difficult  to  keep  down 
an  expression  of  contemj)t  when  we  hear  men 
who  inhabit  the  fertile  plain  l)etween  the  Missis- 
sippi and  Missouri  rivers  speak  with  derision  of  a 
policy  which  offers  tliein  a  free  and  open   market 


290  HISTORY    OF    FREE    TRADE. 

for  everything  they  raise,  and  for  everything  they 
are  able  to  manufacture,  a  policy  which  has  not 
only  multiplied  the  comforts  of  life  to  all  the  peo- 
ple of  Great  Britain,  but  which  has  given  an 
added  value  to  every  acre  of  land  in  Illinois  and 
Iowa. 


©l^e  £ao|^oon  of  £aLor^, 

AND   OTHER  ESSAYS. 


WHEELBARROW. 


CHICAGO: 
PUBLISHED  BY  THK  RADICAL  REVIEW. 

1884. 


TRUTH  LIGHT 

Radical  Revieiv 

PUBLISHED  BY 

THE  RADICAL  REVIEW  PUBLISHING  CO., 

CHICAGO,    ILL. 


GEORGE  SCHUMM.        EMMA  SCHUMM, 
Editoes. 

M.  M.  TRUMBULL,  Associate  Editoe. 


The  Radical  Review,  the  largest  Freethought 
journal  in  the  Northwest,  is  devoted  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  Social,  Religious,  and  Political 
problems  of  the  age.  In  this  discussion  The 
Rev'IEW  is  served  by  a  long  list  of  able  writers. 

SEND    FOR    SAMPLE    COPIES. 

Address— 

The  Ri^dical  Review. 

CHICAGO,  ILL. 
LIBERTY  RIGHT 


s^. 


Ill 

mil 

III 

III 

III 

II 11 II  III 

1  li  II  III!  II           ij 

'i 


